Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/24 Planning Commission Meeting Packet May 2, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 2, 2024 | 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA 95020 Chair: Manny Bhandal: manny.bhandal@cityofgilroy.org Vice Chair: Annedore Kushner: annedore.kushner@cityofgilroy.org Commissioners: Stefanie Elle: stefanie.elle@cityofgilroy.org Adriana Leongardt: adriana.leongardt@cityofgilroy.org Joan Lewis: joan.lewis@cityofgilroy.org Kelly Ramirez: kelly.ramirez@cityofgilroy.org Monica Valdez: monica.valdez@cityofgilroy.org Staff Liaison: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director | sharon.goei@cityofgilroy.org Written comments can be submitted by email to planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org. Please note that written comments will not be read out loud, but will be part of the written record. Comments by the public will be taken on any agenda item before action is taken by the Planning Commission. Persons speaking on any matter are asked to state their name and address for the record. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions on particular issues and for each individual speaker. A minimum of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the Clerk for distribution to the Commission and Staff. Public comments are limited to no more than three-minutes, at the Chair’s discretion. Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to the City of Gilroy, Community Development Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division by 1:00 pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to or at the meeting and are available for public inspection at the Planning Division counter at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00 pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as practicable. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0491. A sound enhancement system is available in the City Council Chambers. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 4 May 2, 2024 | 6:00 PM If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for Public Hearing will be heard when the presiding officer calls for comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and brought to the Planning Commission level for discussion and action. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless requested by the Planning Commission. A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE. Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or by email at cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org. 1. OPENING 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda. The law does not permit the Planning Commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to Community Development Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division by 1:00pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Planning Division at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondences received will be incorporated into the meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 4 May 2, 2024 | 6:00 PM record. Items received after 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as practicable. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RELATED PROJECT APPLICATIONS WILL BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY AND ACTION WILL BE TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY. COMPANION PROJECTS UNDER NEW BUSINESS WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR ACTION PRIOR TO, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RELATED PUBLIC HEARING. THIS REQUIRES DEVIATION IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AS NOTED WITHIN THE AGENDA. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1. April 4, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1. Tentative Map application to subdivide approximately 41.4 acres for development of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05) 1. Staff Report: Cindy McCormick, Planning Manager 2. Public Hearing: 3. Close Public Hearing: 4. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication: 5. Possible Action: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Recommend that the City Council, based on its independent analysis, determine that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), which exempts residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified; and b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 20-05, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. 6.2. Zoning text amendments to implement various programs of the Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element 1. Staff Report: Cindy McCormick, Planning Manager 2. Public Hearing: 3. Close Public Hearing: 4. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication: 5. Possible Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Recommend that the City Council, based on its independent analysis, find that approval of Zoning Amendment Z 24-0001 is exempt from Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 4 May 2, 2024 | 6:00 PM review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) where it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to implement the Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element would not result in a significant environmental effect; and b) Recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance, approving Zoning Amendment Z 24-0001, amending the Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XI (Residential Use Tables) in conformance with the City of Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1. None 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 8.1. Planning Division Staff Approvals 9. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT 10. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 11. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of June 6, 2024 at 6:00 PM Page 1 of 2 City of Gilroy Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM 1. OPENING Tonight’s meeting was called to order by Chair Bhandal at 6:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Bhandal led the pledge of allegiance. 3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL The agenda was posted on Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 5:23 p.m. Attendance Attendee Name Present Stefanie Elle, Commissioner Adriana Leongardt, Commissioner Joan Lewis, Commissioner Kelly Ramirez, Commissioner Monica Valdez, Commissioner Annedore Kushner, Vice Chair Manny Bhandal, Chair 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Bhandal opened public comment for items not on the agenda. There being no speakers, Chair Bhandal closed public comment for items not on the agenda. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1. March 14, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Chair Bhandal; seconded by Commissioner Elle to approve the consent agenda. RESULT: Pass [7 – 0] MOVER: Chair Bhandal SECONDER: Commissioner Elle AYES: Commissioner Elle, Leongardt, Lewis, Ramirez, Valdez, Vice Chair Kushner, and Chair Bhandal 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1. CONTINUE to May 2, 2024, PER APPLICANT’S REQUEST – Tentative Map application to subdivide approximately 41.4 acres for build out of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05) April 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Possible Action: Continue the application to May 2, 2024 There was one public comment from Debi Rerrick regarding emergency services in the Glem Loma Ranch area. A motion was made by Commissioner Ramirez; seconded by Commissioner Lewis to continue the application to the May 2, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. RESULT: Pass [7 – 0] MOVER: Commissioner Ramirez SECONDER: Commissioner Lewis AYES: Commissioner Elle, Leongardt, Lewis, Ramirez, Valdez, Vice Chair Kushner, and Chair Bhandal 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1. None. 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 8.1. Planning Division Staff Approvals There were no Planning Division approvals since the last report provided to the Planning Commission at its March 14, 2024 regular meeting. 9. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT Community Development Director Sharon Goei announced to the Commission regarding Cindy McCormick’s reclassification to Planning Manager and congratulated Cindy. 10. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report. 11. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of May 2, 2024 at 6:00 PM Chair Bhandal adjourned the meeting at 6:24 p.m. Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 | Fax: (408) 846-0429 cityofgilroy.org |planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org Sharon Goei DIRECTOR DATE: May 2, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cindy McCormick, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Tentative Map application to subdivide approximately 41.4 acres for development of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05) RECOMMENDATION Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Recommend that the City Council, based on its independent analysis, determine that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), which exempts residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified; and b)Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 20-05, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Map application TM 20-05 (#20090053) requests subdivision of approximately 41.37+/- acres for development of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area. The subject site is located northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard, and south and southwest of West Luchessa Avenue. The site comprises APN # 808-18-032 and 808-58-005. The requested tentative map proposes to create 40 compact single-family lots in the Canyon Creek neighborhood; six (6) lots for the creation of 41 townhouse style condominium units in the Rocky Knoll neighborhood; and nine (9) lots for the creation of 42 townhouse style condominium units in the Malvasia II neighborhood, for a total of 55 residential lots and 123 residential units. This subdivision would also create one public open space parcel for the construction of the Santa Teresa trail; one public trail easement for the Rocky Knoll Trail; 18 private open space parcels that will be maintained by the homeowners’ association; and associated public and private streets. This tentative map request is for mapping purposes only. Development of the individual lots will be processed through an Architectural and Site Review application in accordance with the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. 2 1 5 4 7 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: Glen Loma Specific Plan Area: The Glen Loma Ranch Development is a 359.6-acre property located in the western rolling foothills of Gilroy between Santa Teresa Boulevard and Uvas Creek. The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan was approved in 2005 after a process that involved City officials, City staff, and input from the local community. The approved Specific Plan area includes 19 distinct neighborhoods along with the related infrastructure projects such as streets, roundabouts, trails, parks, etc. The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan forecasted a build out of 1,693 dwelling units, 155,500 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 145 acres of parks and open space with an extensive trail system linking the various neighborhoods and a town center component. The City has approved tentative maps for 1,083 units, with 996 of those units either built or issued building permits for construction. As of April 10, 2024, the City has issued building permits for a total of 996 units for the following neighborhoods: Vista Bella (146 units), Petite Sirah (77 units), Mataro (51 units), Luchessa (49 units), The Grove (64 units), Home Ranch (52 units), Palomino (2 units), McCutchin Creek (2 units), Wild Chestnut (43 units), Montonico (84 units), Town Center BMR Apartments (158 units), Town Center Townhomes (1241 units), The Glen (23 units), Malvasia (46 units), and Nebbiolo (75 units). The City anticipates issuing building permits for another 86 units within the approved tentative maps for Nebbiolo (27 units), Palomino (35 units) and McCutchin Creek (24 units). This would be bring the total count to 1,082 units, noting that one fewer unit was built in the Town Center Townhome development than permitted by the tentative map. The proposed tentative map (TM 20-05) for the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods would add 123 units towards build out of the Specific Plan, for a total of 1,205 units. The 2005 Glen Loma Specific Plan EIR included an analysis for 1,690 units; therefore, the remaining units that could be built pursuant to the EIR is 485 units. This includes an anticipated 192 units in the Olive Grove neighborhood, a property that is owned by, and being held in reserve by, the Gilroy Unified School District. Specific Plan build out also includes 6.8 acres of land set aside for commercial uses and 1.5 acres of land for the fire station. The applicant has indicated they intend to reduce the overall development of Glen Loma, including elimination of the commercial uses; however no formal documentation of this reduced development has been submitted. Therefore, the City is processing the proposed Tentative Map 20-05 in the same manner as previous tentative maps. Once a formal application for a reduced project development of the overall Glen Loma area is received, City staff will process the applicant’s requested changes to the required mitigation measures. An Addendum to the EIR would be necessary to modify phase 3 traffic 1 Tentative Map 17-01 included approval for 125 units; however only 124 townhome units were built. 3 1 5 4 7 mitigation measures associated with a reduced buildout of the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Review: Pursuant to Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 21.41, the planning commission shall, after considering all reports, recommendations, and comments, transmit its recommendation to the city council within sixty (60) days from the date of its decision. The tentative map may be denied if the proposal would conflict with the City code, statute, law or other valid regulation; if the land is subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation; or if any of the negative findings from the Subdivision Map Act can be made. A list of the findings is provided later in this staff report and also referenced in the attached draft resolution. Future Architectural and Site Reviews: In accordance with the Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement (DA), architectural and site review permits for projects within Glen Loma Ranch, including the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods, would be approved by the planning manager at staff level, provided the plans are consistent with the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Consistency: The Glen Loma Group has obtained a preliminary habitat plan permit for this project (HP 19-03). Environmental Assessment: On November 7, 2005, the City Council certified the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with 52 mitigation measures with adoption of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), exempts residential projects pursuant to a specific plan from further environmental review under CEQA if the project meets the requirements of that section. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of section 15182 as follows: 1. The Gilroy City Council certified the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program with adoption of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan on November 7, 2005; and 2. Tentative Map application TM 20-05 is a residential project implementing the approved Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan and 2005 EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and 3. Tentative Map application TM 20-05 was undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with the approved Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. Because the project meets the requirements of section 15182, no additional CEQA analysis is required. STAFF ANALYSIS: Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is presently undeveloped. The following table identifies the existing land uses and General Plan and zoning designations of the project site and surrounding properties. 4 1 5 4 7 LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Undeveloped Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II Neighborhoods Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Neighborhood District North Open Space, Montonico, Nebbiolo, Malvasia I, and The Glen Neighborhoods Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Neighborhood District South Santa Teresa Boulevard and Eagle Ridge Development Hillside Residential Residential Hillside / Planned Development East Malvasia I and Town Center Neighborhoods Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Neighborhood District West Montonico neighborhood and Santa Teresa Boulevard and Eagle Ridge Development Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area / Hillside Residential Residential Hillside / Planned Development General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site as Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan, which supports the proposed project request. The proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan, as discussed below: POLICY #, TITLE AND SUMMARY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Land Use (LU) Policies LU 1.1 Pattern of Development Ensure an orderly, contiguous pattern of development that prioritizes infill development, phases new development, encourages compactness and efficiency, preserves surrounding open space and agricultural resources, and avoids land use incompatibilities. The Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision follows the development pattern envisioned by the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. This subdivision is located south of the Montonico, Nebbiolo, Malvasia I, and The Glen Neighborhoods, which have approved final maps. This Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision is one of 5 1 5 4 7 POLICY #, TITLE AND SUMMARY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS the final subdivisions in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area. Development of Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II will utilize infrastructure currently in place or under construction to support the Specific Plan as a whole. In addition, buildout of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan will require completion of required EIR mitigation measures, which will ensure needed infrastructure is in place to support the development. LU 2.6 Glen Loma Ranch. Maintain and implement the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan to guide development in the area and ensure the new neighborhoods provide a complementary mix of housing, retail, services, public facilities, and open space. The Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision has been designed in accordance with the adopted Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed tentative map provides a complementary mix of housing types, public facilities and open space. The proposed map is consistent with this policy. LU 3.2 Connectivity. Encourage new residential development to incorporate design features that promote walking and connectivity between blocks. The Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision tentative map includes construction of the Rocky Knoll trail and a portion of the Santa Teresa trail. The map design also incorporates connectivity between neighborhoods. LU 3.11 Noise Mitigation Design. When requiring noise impact mitigation as a part of new and/or expanded development, promote the use of techniques less visually intrusive than sound walls, including but not limited to site design techniques, earth berms, and sound attenuation fencing with wood or other materials that are more compatible with the site and surrounding area. The Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision utilizes building placement to minimize the use of sound walls. No sound walls will be constructed along Santa Teresa Boulevard as part of this project. Only the eight lots directly abutting Luchessa Avenue would need sound walls. 6 1 5 4 7 POLICY #, TITLE AND SUMMARY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Mobility (M) Policies M 1.2 Street Network Hierarchy. Provide a transportation network that has a hierarchy of arterial, collector, and local streets to efficiently move bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular traffic. M 1.4 Residential Traffic. Protect residential streets from excess traffic. M 1.5 Transportation Network Connectivity. Develop a transportation network that connects users of all modes to destinations in Gilroy. M 1.9 Interconnected Residential Streets. Encourage street patterns that provide direct access between neighborhoods for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicycles and connections to nearby neighborhood commercial services. Where access is not provided through the design of the street system, require easements for pedestrian and bicycle access (e.g., between cul-de-sacs). M 1.10 Private Streets. Require private streets to function similar to public streets. Private streets shall include sidewalks, street trees, and promote connectivity. M 2.2 Complete Street Standards. Adopt, maintain, and implement complete streets standards consistent with the NACTO Guidelines that are applicable to adjacent land uses and sensitive to nearby neighborhoods. M 3.2 New Development. Require new development to include a system of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that link all land uses, provide accessibility to The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area is served by three major roadways; Santa Teresa Boulevard, Luchessa Avenue, and Miller Avenue. All street designs within the Specific Plan area must be consistent with the Specific Plan and built to City standards. When the EIR was adopted, the existing streets located within the project site included Club Drive, Grenache Way, Syrah Court and Miller Avenue. Club Drive is located in the northwestern region of the project site and runs from Santa Teresa Boulevard east toward Uvas Creek but stops at the project site boundary. Grenache Way connects Club Drive with Syrah Court, providing access to Ascencion Solorsano Middle School and neighborhoods in the western portion of Glen Loma. The Glen Loma Specific Plan EIR described the future transportation network within each of the three phases of development, and further illustrated these phases in the attached phasing map. Phase 1 (east of Tenth Street) would connect Luchessa Avenue between Greenfield Drive and Miller Avenue, and Tenth Street between Santa Teresa Boulevard and just north of Luchessa Avenue. Phase 2 (northwest of the preserved natural open space area) included Club Drive. Phase 3 (west of Tenth Street) includes Merlot Drive and what is now the connection of West Luchessa Avenue between Santa Teresa Boulevard (east of Ballybunion Drive) and Tenth Street. The proposed Tentative Map (TM 20-05) will complete the extension of Luchessa Avenue between the Miller Avenue roundabout and the Vintner Street roundabout. 7 1 5 4 7 POLICY #, TITLE AND SUMMARY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS parks and schools, and connect to all existing or planned external street and trail facilities in accordance with the Mobility Diagrams. M 3.4 Bicycle and pedestrian Path Network. Develop and maintain a network of paths along linear parks, public easements, drainages, and other open space areas to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Tentative Map application TM 20-05 will advance the Specific Plan’s bicycle and pedestrian goals by developing the portion of the Santa Teresa Boulevard trail that abuts its boundary and constructing the Rocky Knoll trail. These trail improvements, along with the trails constructed with the other Specific Plan neighborhoods, will provide pedestrian and bicycle access between neighborhoods and recreational areas within the Specific Plan area. The circulation analysis provided later in this staff report, further describes the transportation network. General Plan Neighborhood District Land Use Designation: The purpose of these designations is to encourage compact, complete, neighborhood-style development. Traditional single-family uses will comprise a substantial portion of these districts. Commercial and medium- to high-density residential uses should be clustered to form neighborhood centers. Neighborhood centers would be centrally located to be convenient to as many residents as possible. Residents can access neighborhood centers easily by walking, biking, or driving. Neighborhood-serving amenities such as schools, parks, open space, and neighborhood commercial will be integrated in the neighborhood design in a manner that provides the greatest benefit to the community. Neighborhood District Consistency: The adoption of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan implements the Neighborhood District land use designation within the Specific Plan area. The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan was envisioned from the beginning as a planning tool that would be consistent with and provide implementation measures sufficient to execute the policies of the Neighborhood District as set forth in the Gilroy General Plan. The adopted Specific Plan lists the various policies of the Neighborhood District and provides a detailed response on how the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with these policies. Specific Plan Consistency: The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan has set forth a series of Standards and Guidelines to help ensure that the vision of the Specific Plan translates to the ultimate built environment. Standards are mandatory requirements that are enforced by terms such as “shall” or “will”. Guidelines are suggested or encouraged but are not explicitly mandatory. However, their intent represents an objective of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan and as such they are intended to be followed in spirit if not 8 1 5 4 7 literally. Thus, guidelines leave some flexibility for design creativity to meet the intent of the guideline and are promulgated by terms such as “should” or “may”. The following development standards and guidelines are applicable to the proposed project. APPLICABLE GLEN LOMA RANCH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS LUS-1: Each Neighborhood within the Specific Plan shall observe the setbacks to natural features established within the Specific Plan and project Mitigation Measures The Malvasia II subdivision is surrounded by developed or developing land. However, the Canyon Creek and Rocky Knoll subdivisions are largely surrounded by preserved natural open space and other open space. Lot setbacks to the open space areas and the creation of a fuel transition zone were established during development of the Specific Plan. These areas are indicated on Specific Plan Figure 25. The lots within this subdivision have been designed in accordance with this plan. LUS-2: The Neighborhoods within the Specific Plan shall provide visual as well as physical access to the natural features being preserved and enhanced subject to environmental consideration where appropriate. The Canyon Creek and Rocky Knoll subdivisions preserve the view of the preserved open space areas via buffers and subdivision design. The Rocky Knoll trail and Santa Teresa trail will provide access to the open space areas. LUS-11: Streets, and/or trails shall link schools, parks, commercial areas, and residential neighborhoods to ensure pedestrian access. The Specific Plan has been designed with a system of streets and trails that connect the schools, parks, commercial area and neighborhoods within the Specific Plan area. The proposed tentative map implements this aspect of the specific plan by constructing streets that will connect to the master planned street system, as well as constructing the segment of Santa Teresa trail abutting the site and the Rocky Knoll trail. TCMF/ OSS-2: Provide pedestrian paths to connect parking, open space and recreational facilities. The project has been designed with sidewalks that connect parking, open space and recreational facilities. In addition, the project will construct a segment of the Santa Teresa trail and the Rocky Knoll trail. 9 1 5 4 7 APPLICABLE GLEN LOMA RANCH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS TRS-2: The route and destination points of the various trail segments will be conceptually set through the adoption of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. Future Neighborhoods that develop adjacent to the trail segments shall respect the trail alignments as adopted. A segment of the Santa Teresa trail abuts this subdivision. This trail segment and the Rocky Knoll trail will be constructed as part of this project. The subdivision has been designed to accommodate construction of both trails as envisioned by the Specific Plan. TRS-4: Trail segments will be constructed by individual projects adjacent to the trails. The completed trail segments and an area equivalent to the width of future multi-use trails will be built to city standards and dedicated to the City of Gilroy. A segment of the Santa Teresa trail abuts this subdivision. This trail segment and the Rocky Knoll trail will be constructed as part of this project. FPS-1: The size of each Focal Point shall be at least 4,500 square feet in size. Each neighborhood provides a focal point area exceeding 4,500 square feet. NLS-1: Neighborhoods that lie adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard shall provide a fifty-foot (50’) buffer for acoustical and aesthetic considerations. The Malvasia II and Rocky Knoll neighborhoods are located adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard and will be visible from that roadway. The developer has designed both neighborhoods with townhouse style condominium units fronting on Santa Teresa Boulevard. This design eliminates the need for soundwalls along this frontage. The closest residential unit is located a minimum of 50 feet from the Santa Teresa Boulevard future face-of-curb. NLS-6: Neighborhoods that lie adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard are encouraged to feature higher density residential product types so the buildings provide noise shielding in lieu of soundwalls. The Malvasia II and Rocky Knoll neighborhoods are located adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard. Both neighborhoods will be developed with multi-family housing. The design of these neighborhoods will eliminate the need for soundwalls. 10 1 5 4 7 APPLICABLE GLEN LOMA RANCH DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES GUIDELINE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS VAG-1: Through streets are preferred, but loop streets are permitted to form interconnecting grid patterns. This subdivision proposes a combination of through and looped streets. NLG-2: In cases where sound walls are used, the following measures should be used: Breaks and openings shall be incorporated in the design of the sound walls. Locate sound walls behind berms and/ or landscaping to screen them from Santa Teresa Boulevard. The applicant has designed the subdivision to minimize soundwalls. Only short sections of streets will require soundwalls, such that no breaks are needed. Instead, the soundwalls will be screened with landscaping. Tentative Map (TM 20-05) Analysis: The project has been reviewed by all City departments and applicable agencies. Based on this review, conditions of approval have been prepared in conformance with the requirements of City Code. Residential subdivisions must comply with Chapter 21, Subdivisions and Land Development. In accordance with Section 21.41(i) of the Gilroy City Code, initial approval of a tentative map is valid for twenty-four (24) months. Such approval may only be extended at the Council’s discretion. The subject property would create three neighborhoods within the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area: the Canyon Creek (40 lots); the Rocky Knoll (six [6] lots for 41 townhouse units); and the Malvasia II neighborhoods (nine [9] lots for 42 townhouse units). The proposed tentative map would also create parcels for open space areas, as well as public and private streets. a) Flood Zone: As provided in the Glen Loma Specific Plan, the proposed development areas are not within the FEMA 100 year flood plain or flood way. There is only a small portion of the Specific Plan area within a floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate map. This area is not proposed for development. b) Property Dedications and Easements: The developer will dedicate trail land to the City for the Santa Teresa trail improvements and easements; the public right-of-way along West Luchessa Avenue; and land required for public service easements. 11 1 5 4 7 c) Open Space: In addition to the specific plan-wide open space and focal point areas discussed below, the Malvasia II and Rocky Knoll neighborhoods will develop the portions of the Class I (paved) Santa Teresa trail that abuts the properties. The entire Rocky Knoll trail will also be constructed with the Rocky Knoll and Canyon Creek neighborhoods, connecting the Santa Teresa trail to West Luchessa Avenue. Trail/Open Space Interfaces: Approximately 25 percent of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area will be maintained as permanent preserved open space. Homes within the Canyon Creek neighborhood that back onto natural open space are required to construct open fencing to allow property owners to monitor the open space areas. However, townhome style condominium units in the Rocky Knoll and Canyon Creek subdivisions that face the Santa Teresa and Rocky Knoll trails are not required to install fencing along trail interfaces. Open Space Buffers/Fuel Transition Zones: Specific Plan policy POSS-5 requires open space buffers around preserved open space areas. These buffers, which act as fuel transition zones (FTZ), are areas of mowed, native vegetation and are specified in Specific Plan figure 26. The buffers/FTZs shown on the proposed tentative map comply with Specific Plan requirements. Open Space Maintenance: All open space within the three neighborhoods, the Santa Teresa trail, and the Rocky Knoll trail will be maintained by the homeowners’ association. d) Stormwater Treatment Basins: The tentative map shows two detention basins: one on parcel B4 and one on parcel B18. The basins are designed to provide stormwater detention and stormwater treatment for the proposed development. The treatment basins will be constructed as part of project improvements. e) On and Off-Site Improvements: The following on-site improvements would be developed as part of this tentative map approval: completion of West Luchessa Avenue along the property boundary; Santa Teresa Trail and associated landscaping; and Rocky Knoll trail and associated landscaping. f) Circulation: The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan includes a circulation system composed of arterial, collector and local roads connecting to Santa Teresa Boulevard, Miller Avenue, Tenth Street, and West Luchessa Avenue. The Specific Plan also includes a well-developed system of bicycle and pedestrian trails that provide connectivity throughout the Specific Plan area and to adjacent residential neighborhoods, Christmas Hill Park, and the Uvas Creek Park Preserve. Opportunities for transit are also included within the plan area. Access to the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision will be provided by West Luchessa Avenue, Merlot Drive, Vinador Place, Vintner Street and Fortino Court. Private streets within the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II subdivision comply with city of Gilroy private street standards in terms of lane width, sidewalk width, and parking stall width. All private streets will be maintained by the homeowners’ association. The names of the new private streets have been approved 12 1 5 4 7 in accordance with the Development Agreement. g) Density: The densities of the neighborhoods proposed in this phase of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan are shown in the chart below. Neighborhood Total Units Net Area (acres)Net Density (DU/Acre) Canyon Creek 40 3.9 10.26+/- Rocky Knoll 41 1.39 29.5+/- Malvasia II 42 1.5 28+/- Totals:123 6.79 22.6 (average density) h) Site Layout and Lot Sizes: TM 20-05 proposes to subdivide land located in the central portion of the Specific Plan area, northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard, and south and southwest of West Luchessa Avenue. This subdivision is bordered to the north by open space and the Nebbiolo, Malvasia I, and The Glen Neighborhoods; to the south by Santa Teresa Boulevard and the Eagle Ridge development; to the east by the Town Center and Malvasia I neighborhoods; and to the west by the Montonico neighborhood and Santa Teresa Boulevard and the Eagle Ridge development. The following chart summarizes the proposed parcels and land uses: Land Use Acreage Lot(s) Public Open Space Lots and trail easements (Santa Teresa trail and Rocky Knoll trail)0.30 A1 Private Open Space Lots 29.21 B1-B18 Residential Lots 6.79 1-55 Public Streets 0.81 n/a Private Streets 4.26 n/a Total 41.37 Canyon Creek Neighborhood: The Canyon Creek neighborhood is located between W. Luchessa Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard. Canyon Creek is northeast of the Rocky Knoll area and adjacent to Reservoir Canyon Creek. A portion of the Rocky 13 1 5 4 7 Knoll trail (a hiking and bicycle trail) running adjacent to Reservoir Canyon Creek will be developed with this neighborhood. The neighborhood includes a 0.12+/- -acre private open space area to be developed as a neighborhood focal point (parcel B11). As with all neighborhoods included in this tentative map, the neighborhood focal point design will be considered as part of the architectural and site review application. The Canyon Creek neighborhood consists of 40 single-family compact lots, at a density of 10.26+/- DU/net acre. [Note that compact lots are described in the Specific Plan in Section 7, page 24.] Lots in this neighborhood range in size from 3,520+/- to 7,200+/- square feet and will be served by private streets [Vinador Place, Fortino Court, Bellini Court] with 40 on-street parking spaces. [Note: all on-street parking discussed in this tentative map analysis is in addition to parking in garages and driveways.] All lots within this neighborhood will front on private streets; 15 lots will be accessed by private driveways off Fortino Court. Eight homes in this neighborhood will back onto West Luchessa Avenue, necessitating a 6-foot high sound wall on that street. [Note: an acoustical analysis prepared for this Specific Plan has determined that soundwalls with a height of six feet are adequate to meet General Plan noise standards. Therefore, all soundwalls discussed in this tentative map analysis will be six feet high.] Sixteen lots in this neighborhood will side or back onto private preserved open space areas. These include lots 3, 4, 9, 10, 15; 16 through 24; 35 and 36. As previously discussed under the open space (section “c”) Tentative Map (TM 20-05) Analysis, lots backing onto preserved open space areas will provide open view fencing, in accordance with the adopted Specific Plan. Rocky Knoll Neighborhood: The Rocky Knoll neighborhood is adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard. Like the Canyon Creek neighborhood, the Rocky Knoll neighborhood is adjacent to the Rocky Knoll area and adjacent to Reservoir Canyon Creek. A portion of the Rocky Knoll trail will be developed with this neighborhood. Access to the Rocky Knoll neighborhood will be provided by an extension of Merlot Drive (Merlot Court). The neighborhood includes a 1.7+/- -acre private open space area (B-17) to be developed as a focal point surrounding the neighborhood. All six residential lots in the Rocky Knoll neighborhood will be developed with townhouse style condominium units (41 units). All units will be oriented toward adjacent streets or the Rocky Knoll open space area. This design will minimize the visibility of parking areas, as well as eliminate the need for sound walls. Malvasia II Neighborhood: The Malvasia II neighborhood is located at the southeast corner of West Luchessa Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard. It is bordered by streets on three side and an open space area on the fourth side. The Malvasia II neighborhood will receive access from Merlot Drive, via Luchessa Avenue. The Malvasia neighborhood includes a 0.4+/- -acre private open space area (B-14) to be developed as a focal point in the center of the neighborhood. 14 1 5 4 7 All nine residential lots in the Malvasia II neighborhood will be developed with townhouse style condominium units (42 units). All units will be oriented toward adjacent streets. This design will minimize the visibility of parking areas, as well as eliminate the need for sound walls. Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant to Government Code section 66473.5, for a city to approve a subdivision map, it must make a finding that a proposed subdivision is consistent with its general plan. Government Code Section 66474 further provides that a city shall deny approval of a tentative tract or parcel map if it makes any one of seven specific “negative” findings. Thus, for a city to approve a tentative tract or parcel map, it must find the inverse of the following seven “negative” findings in section 66474. a. That the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. As provided in this staff report, the proposed Tentative Map (TM 20-05), is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan and the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. As provided in attached Draft Resolution, the above seven findings can be made in the negative, supporting a Planning Commission recommendation of approval of the proposed Tentative Map (TM 20-05), as conditioned in the attached draft resolution, including all mitigation measures. PUBLIC NOTICING: On March 19, 2024, notices of this application and the April 4th Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, utilizing 15 1 5 4 7 data from the County Assessor. The notice was also published in the Gilroy Dispatch on March 22, 2024. The property has also been posted with on-site signage notifying passersby of pending development. In addition, the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage. April 4, 2024 Continuance: The April 4th hearing was continued to a date certain of May 2, 2024 and therefore did not require additional noticing. However, courtesy notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject development. The mailed courtesy notice also included a URL to the dedicated city webpage for the project. Applicant/Staff Correspondence: As noted in the last paragraph on page 2 of this staff report, the applicant and City staff have been discussing a reduced build out of the overall Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area, and how such a reduction would reduce traffic impacts related to trip generation. These discussions are still occurring but have no bearing on the May 2nd public hearing for Application TM 20-05, since the Tentative Map project as proposed does not include a documented downsizing of the overall Glen Loma development. To further proceed with an Addendum to the EIR regarding traffic mitigations, the applicant will need to formally submit a project proposal for a reduced development for the Glen Loma area. See attached April 22, 2024 correspondence from Augie Dent in response to staff’s April 18, 2024 email. A formal response to the applicant will be provided by the end of the day on Monday, April 29, 2024. As noted above, this correspondence has no bearing on the Tentative Map but is being provided at the request of Mr. Dent. Public Comment: As of noon on Thursday, April 25th, the City received four public comments, which are attached to this staff report as a single document. In response to these comments, staff explained that the fire station is not being considered as part of this Tentative Map application. The contractual obligations for Glen Loma to build the fire station would be triggered by the issuance of the 1,100th building permit. To date, 996 building permits have been issued. The architectural design is not being considered at the Tentative Map hearing since the Development Agreement for the Specific Plan allows staff approval so long as the architectural plans are consistent with the Specific Plan. The architectural and site review would occur after approval of the tentative map. It’s important to note that the City may only review the application for compliance with objective standards consistent with the Specific Plan. Three story townhomes are permitted in the Glen Loma development. The approved Specific Plan includes 145 acres of parks and open space with an extensive trail system linking the various neighborhoods and a town center component. Approximately 25 percent of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area will be maintained as permanent preserved open space. Additional analysis on site circulation and open space is provided in other sections of this staff report. APPEAL PROCEDURE: If the developer is dissatisfied with any action of the Planning Commission with respect to the tentative map or the kinds, nature and extent of the improvements recommended by the advisory agency to be required, they may, within ten (10) days after such action, appeal to the City Council for a public hearing thereon. Tentative Map application TM 20- 05 is tentatively scheduled for the June 3, 2024 City Council meeting. 16 1 5 4 7 ATTACHMENTS: 1. TM 20-05 Location Map 2. 2005 Resolution adopting the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program 3. Glen Loma Ranch EIR Phasing Exhibit 4. TM 20-05 Tentative Map (proposed) 5. TM 20-05 Draft Resolution 6. Public Comments, as of noon 4-25-24 7. 4-18-24 email to applicant 8. 4-22-24 correspondence from applicant 9.Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (link) 10.Glen Loma Ranch Draft EIR (link) 11.Glen Loma Ranch Final EIR (link) Note: Map is for reference purposes only. Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll & Malvasia II 8,000 City of Gilroy, GIS Services 0.3 1:NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet 0.13 Miles0.30 City of Gilroy RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -81 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, FOR THE GLEN LOMA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (GPA 00 -01), FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the project analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") for the Glen Loma Ranch residential and commercial project applications GPA 00 -01 and Z 05 -13, adopting the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan and codifying provisions of the Glen Loma Ranch Special Use District, and re- zoning to GLR/PUD (Glen Loma Ranch Special Use District/Planned Unit Development) from ND (Neighborhood District) ( "Project "), is composed of approximately 360 acres east of Santa Teresa Boulevard between Greenfield Drive and Uvas Creek, APNs 808 -18 -003, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 808 -19 -008, 009, 010, 011, 808 -43 -001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006; and WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy held three community meetings between October 2000 and June 2001 to gain input into the overall design of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council held a series of six workshops to discuss the process and overall Project between February 2001 and September 2005, including a workshop in May 2001 with the Parks and Recreation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 2005, at which time the Commission considered the public testimony, the Staff Report dated September 29, 2005, and all other documentation related to the Project, and recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR as completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the Final EIR, on October 17, 2005, at which time the Council received the full record of the entire proceedings, took public testimony, and heard additional City staff responses, and thereafter certified the Final EIR as completed in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Gilroy is the decision - making body for the Glen Loma Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Gilroy intends to approve actions related to the Project as identified in the Final EIR, entitled, "Final Environmental Impact Report: Glen Loma Specific Plan" dated September 2005, and "Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report: Glen Loma Specific Plan" dated June 10, 2005, SCH # 2003042018; and IGB01673691.3 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 WHEREAS, CEQA requires that in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR has been prepared that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the decision - making body of the lead agency make certain findings regarding those significant effects on the environment identified in the Final EIR. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council does hereby attest to its findings made October 17, 2005, that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments received at the public hearings on the Final EIR and on the Project, prior to acting upon or approving the Project; and has found that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Gilroy as Lead Agency for the Project. 2. The findings and recommendations set forth herein are made by this City Council as the City's findings under CEQA relating to the Project. The findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the Project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives to the Project. 3. The City Council hereby adopts the mitigation measures in the Final EIR, summarized in the "Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures," attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A ", except as modified herein, as conditions of the Project. 4. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project (the "Program ") is attached as Exhibit `B" and adopted as part of this resolution. The Program identifies impacts of the Project and corresponding mitigation measures, and designates the agency responsible for the implementation of each mitigation measure and for its monitoring, and the timing required for implementation of each mitigation measure. 5. The City Council hereby finds and recognizes that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications and other information in its responses to comments on the Revised Draft EIR for the Project, and also incorporates information obtained by the City since the Revised Draft EIR was issued. This City Council hereby finds and determines that such changes and additional information are not significant new information as that term is defined under the provisions of CEQA, because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated would result from the Project and do not reflect any substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impact. No feasible mitigation measures considerably different from those previously analyzed in the Revised Draft EIR have been proposed that would lessen significant environmental impacts of the Project; and no feasible alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Revised Draft EIR have been proposed that would lessen significant environmental impacts of the Project. Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds and determines that recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR or Final EIR for further public review and comment is not required under CEQA. MM673691.3 01- 110405-04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 6. The City Council does hereby designate the City Clerk's office of the City of Gilroy, at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020, as the location of and as the custodian of documents and the record of proceedings on which the decision to approve the Project is based. 7. The City Council does hereby make the following findings with respect to the significant effects on the environment of the Project based on facts within the administrative record as a whole, and as identified in the Final EIR, with the stipulation that all information in these findings is intended as a summary of the entire record supporting the Final EIR. Any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by commenters on the Draft EIR and not adopted as part of the Final EIR are hereby expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to the comments set forth in the Final EIR and in the record. SECTION I. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. AESTHETICS 1. Potentially Significant Impact - Change in Visual Character and Effects on Scenic Resources Viewed from Santa Teresa Boulevard. Unless properly designed, the project could result in substantial adverse effects on the visual character of the project site and its surroundings as well as on the scenic resources afforded by the project site from Santa Teresa Boulevard, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, as recognized in the General Plan EIR, implementation of General Plan policies and actions will reduce visual quality and aesthetics impacts of developments anticipated under the General Plan to a less than significant level. The project is situated in the city limits, is nearly surrounded by urban development, and includes setbacks, parks, and preserved natural areas, minimizing the aesthetic impacts. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring preparation and implementation of a Santa Teresa Boulevard Landscaped Buffer Plan to be prepared prior to approval of the first tentative map and implemented in phases as development proceeds, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 1 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. The City Council also finds that requiring preparation of visual simulations demonstrating before and after views of proposed development with each application for projects adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 2 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing both mitigation measures 1 and 2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. B. AIR QUALITY 1. Significant Unavoidable Impact— Conflict with the Clean Air Plan/Violate Air Quality Standards. The Project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan ( "CAP ") because the 1GB01673691.3 01- 110405-04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 Project is consistent with the General Plan, which is inconsistent with the CAP. This would be considered a significant unavoidable environmental impact. The Specific Plan includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle trails and includes development of local commercial services that could be accessible by residents within the Specific Plan area. These elements of the Specific Plan would serve to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips taken by future residents, thereby marginally reducing vehicle related air emissions. The feasibility of extending transit service to one or more areas within the Specific Plan area has yet to be fully evaluated by the VTA. If service were feasible, this too would marginally reduce the generation of vehicular emissions from implementation of the Specific Plan. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Findings of Fact. The provisions and policies contained in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan will not avoid or substantially lessen the impact. There are no mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Statement of Overriding Considerations. See Statement of Overriding Consideration, Section III. 2. Cumulative Impact on Air Quality. Significant Unavoidable Impact — Conflict with the Clean Air PlanNiolate Air Quality Standards. The implementation of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan would result in a significant cumulative impact on air quality. The provisions and policies contained the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan will not avoid or substantially lessen the impact. Therefore, this impact is considered to be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Findings of Fact. The provisions and policies contained in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan will not avoid or substantially lessen the impact. There are no mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Statement of Overriding Considerations. See Statement of Overriding Consideration, Section III. 3. Potentially Significant Impact — Project Construction— Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. Large construction projects involving grading and other earth movement can generate significant quantities of PM10. Projects involving large amounts of earth movement near sensitive receptors such as residences or schools can have a potentially significant health impact. Sensitive receptors could be affected by emissions from construction equipment, as well as the generation of significant quantities of PM10 during site preparation activities. This is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's approach to CEQA analysis of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring preparation and implementation of the dust control measures during grading and construction activities in accordance with the 1GB01673691.3 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 specifications set forth in mitigation measure 3 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. C. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 1. Potentially Significant Impact — Burrowing Owl. As reported in the biological assessment and addendum, no evidence of burrowing owl was observed during field surveys. However, the Project could potentially affect burrowing owl directly or indirectly through habitat disturbance. Burrowing owl could occur in grassland habitats. Although the potential for burrowing owl to occur is low due to regular disking and surrounding development, both of which discourage burrowing owls from moving into an area, should active burrowing owl nests occur on or immediately adjacent to the project site, any construction and site preparation activities within or immediately adjacent to nest habitat, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of active burrowing owl nests would be a significant impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring pre - construction surveys prior to grading and construction activities, and if necessary, preparation of a habitat management plan, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 4 of the Final EIR, are feasible measures, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Potentially Significant Impact — Loggerhead Shrike and Nesting Raptors. No evidence of loggerhead shrike or nesting raptors was observed during field surveys. However, development of the project site could potentially affect protected bird species directly or indirectly through habitat disturbance. Nesting shrike and raptors could occur in areas of oak/riparian woodland or mixed/cultivated woodlands. The project will result in no impacts to mixed/cultivated woodlands (or minor impacts [less than one acre] to mixed/cultivated woodlands with development of the Northern Commercial Reserve area adjacent to McCutchin Creek), and minor impacts (0.2 acres) to oak/riparian woodland. Should active nest(s) of loggerhead shrike and protected raptors species occur in the trees, any construction and site preparation activities, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of individuals of these species or abandonment of their nests would be a significant impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring pre - construction surveys prior to grading and construction activities, and subsequent measures if active nests are found, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 5 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 3. Potentially Significant Impact — Bat Roosts and Sensitive Bat Species. No evidence of bat roosts was observed during field surveys. However, the project could potentially affect sensitive bat species directly or indirectly through habitat disturbance. Bat roosts could occur in areas of oak/riparian woodland or mixed/cultivated woodlands. The project will result in no impacts to mixed/cultivated woodlands (or minor impacts [less than one acre] to mixed/cultivated IG801673691.3 _5 _ 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 woodlands with development of the Northern Commercial Reserve area adjacent to McCutchin Creek), and minor impacts (0. 2 acres) to oak/riparian woodland. Should any bat roosts occur in the trees, any construction and site preparation activities could result in the direct loss or indirect disturbance of roosts. The loss of individuals of these species or their roosts would be a significant impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring pre - construction surveys prior to grading and construction activities, and the subsequent measures if active bat roosts are found, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 6 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact — Sensitive Habitat. Riparian habitat is regarded as an important vegetation community because of the number of ecological functions it performs (e.g., nutrient removal, sediment stabilization, groundwater recharge) and its value as wildlife habitat and as a movement corridor for a number of common and special- status species. Loss of this resource is attributed to conversion of habitat to agricultural and urban land uses. In response to the reduction of riparian habitat, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) considers riparian woodland habitat to be a "high priority" habitat, which include habitats that are rare in California and worthy of consideration by the CDFG Natural Diversity Database. Oak woodlands are considered important natural communities because they provide a variety of ecological, aesthetic, and economic values. The extent of oak woodlands in California has declined as a result of agricultural conversion, urban development, fuel wood harvesting, and grazing. In response to this loss, CDFG, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Native Plant Society, and The Nature Conservancy have identified the conservation and management of oak woodlands as major issues. In addition, the oak/riparian woodland habitat and the water sources with which they are associated may be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction under Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code. To ensure preservation of oak/riparian woodland habitat, Specific Plan policy POSG -3 specifies that development should not occur closer than 100 feet to a defined creek bank or tree canopy of a defined riparian area or 50 feet to other preserved open space areas (coastal scrub areas, mixed cultivated woodland, and rocky serpentine grassland areas). The policy also states that in certain neighborhoods within the Specific Plan area, other setback standards may be approved due to site constraints or to accomplish specific project goals, but shall in no event be less than 30 feet. The Specific Plan indicates that the Home Ranch neighborhood will include a reduced 30 -foot setback to oak woodland scrub area; however, no other neighborhoods in the Specific Plan area call for reduced setbacks. No construction is anticipated within the woodland buffer areas. To minimize impacts to oak/riparian woodland habitat along McCutchin Creek, the right -of -way for Merlot Drive has been designed to split at the oak tree cluster south of Club Drive and IGB01673691.3 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 continue through the break in oak/riparian woodland habitat on either side. The impacts resulting from road construction are anticipated to be less than 0.20 acre. To minimize impacts to oak/riparian woodland habitat along Reservoir Canyon Creek, the right - of -way for Merlot Drive has been aligned to cross the creek at a natural break in oak/riparian woodland vegetation. The project includes a bridge that will span the creek. Construction of the bridge and associated abutments and support structures will not require removal of any significant vegetation. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the following measures are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures: Design development to include adequate buffer areas to protect sensitive habitats, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 7 of the Final EIR. Design development to avoid unnecessary filling or other disturbance of natural drainage courses and associated oak/riparian woodland vegetation, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 8 of the Final EIR. Preparation of a habitat restoration plan in the event development results in the loss of oak and/or riparian woodland habitat, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 9 of the Final EIR. Monitoring the construction of the Reservoir Canyon Creek Bridge to ensure that there are no impacts to wetlands and associated oak/riparian woodland habitat, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 10 of the Final EIR. Development of a suitable ownership structure to take long -term responsibility for maintaining and funding the ongoing management of any open space, woodland, vegetation riparian, or other habitat conservation easements on site, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 11 of the Final EIR. Management of the preserved serpentine rocky grassland on site to reduce indirect impacts resulting from public use, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 12 of the Final EIR. Installation of siltation fencing, hay bales, or other suitable erosion control measures along portions of natural and manmade drainage channels in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measures 13 of the Final EIR. Preparation and implementation of a landscape plan for areas adjacent to riparian habitat, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 14 of the Final EIR. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 5. Potentially Significant Impact — U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Waters. The project was designed to avoid major impacts to the natural creeks and seasonal wetlands on the site. As part of the improvements associated with the Olive Grove, McCutchin Creek, and IGB01673691.3 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 Palomino neighborhoods, the Specific Plan includes realignment of an existing man-made, linear, predominantly unvegetated drainage channel that originates from McCutchin Canyon. The existing drainage will be redirected along Santa Teresa Boulevard and will be revegetated. A preliminary estimate of total impacts to waters of the U.S. and wetlands is less than 0.07 acre. The loss of any waters of the U.S. or wetlands at a level that would require mitigation under applicable Army Corps of Engineers regulations would be considered a significant environmental impact in the event that such mitigation were not to be adopted and implemented. The drainage channel restoration identified in the Specific Plan will assist with mitigating this impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the drainage channel restoration identified in the Specific Plan, as well as requiring preparation of a wetland delineation for those portions of the project that may result in the removal or alteration of wetlands, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 15 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6. Potentially Significant Impact — Wildlife Movement. The project site is composed primarily of low - quality plant communities, such as the cultivated fields and grasslands. Most of the good quality habitat, such as oak/riparian woodland, mixed /cultivated woodland, coastal scrub, and rocky serpentine grassland, will be preserved. The main wildlife movement corridors most likely correspond to the woodland areas adjacent to creeks and drainages on site. Open space standards and guidelines identified in the Specific Plan call for these woodland areas to be preserved as open space and to be protected by buffer zones between the edge of riparian corridor and drainages to the edge of the project site. However, increased nighttime lighting and/or unleashed pets wandering into these open space areas could restrict the movement or activity of wildlife species occurring in these habitats. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the following measures are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures: Open space standards and guidelines in the Specific Plan. Preparation and implementation of a schematic lighting plan for each development proposal, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 16 of the Final EIR. Preparation and implementation of a signage plan to address off -trail human disturbance, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 17 of the Final EIR. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 7. Potentially Significant Impact — Tree Removals. General plan policy 20.04 provides direction that limits development in areas supporting rare and endangered species and requires mitigation for development that must occur in these areas. Implementation of the preserved open space standards and guidelines identified in the Specific Plan, as well as mitigation measures provided herein, will ensure consistency with this policy. IGB01673691.3 _ 01- 110405 - 04706099 -g Resolution No. 2005 -51 The City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy, section 6. 0, states that the following trees shall be designated significant: Existing native trees (naturally occurring species in Gilroy) six (6) inches or more in diameter, at a point four and one half (4 1/2) feet above the ground; or Important to the historical or visual aspect of Gilroy (the hillside tree stands). Removal of any trees considered to be significant under the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy would be considered a significant adverse impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the following measures are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures: Conducting a field survey by a certified arborist to determine the number and location of trees proposed to be removed in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 18 of the Final EIR. Fencing trees or groups of trees to prevent injury during construction, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 19 of the Final EIR. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Potentially Significant Impact — Seismic Activity Relative to Soil Stability. Development at the project site is subject to potentially significant hazards due to the varied geologic and soils conditions throughout the project site. Geologic and soil hazards have the potential to result in substantial property damage and possible injury or loss of life. The following summarizes these geologic and soils conditions: The shrink/swell potential at the project site varies from low to high. Approximately 60 percent of the project site in the southern region has a very low liquefaction hazard potential. The remaining 40 percent of the project site in the northern region has a moderate liquefaction hazard potential. Approximately 30 percent of the project site is made up of soils with a moderate to high erosion hazard rating. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the requirement for preparation, submission, and implementation of recommendations in a soils investigation for development within the project area, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 20 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 1GB01673691.3 01- 110405- 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 2. Potentially Significant Impact — Seismic Effects on Structural Integrity. Potential seismic impacts to the project include failure or displacement of a structure located on a fault or from violent ground shaking. The project site may be affected by strong seismic shaking of the regional San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring structures to be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code to minimize the potential for significant damage to life and property, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 21 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 3. Potentially Significant Impact — Earthquake Faults. The majority of the project site is comprised of moderate and moderately high earthquake hazards. A portion of the project site is located within a fault rupture hazard zone. The project includes residential uses in the area of the site where the fault rupture hazard zone is indicated. Any fault activity on the project site could lead to severe damage to life and property. This would be a potentially significant impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the requirement for preparation, submission, and implementation of recommendations in a fault investigation for development within the project area, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 22 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact — Soil Erosion. Although the soils on the project site have a low to moderate erosion, erosion may occur if the soils are unprotected during the rainy season. Soil erosion may lead to sedimentation of Uvas Creek or other riparian corridors located on -site which could reduce flood level capacities, diminish water quality and choke organisms. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the following measures are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures: Project developers shall comply with the State Water Resources Control Board's general permit for construction activities, including the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which would address soil erosion impacts during construction. Project developers shall comply with City requirements for preparation and implementation of an erosion and deposition control plan for all new development detailing appropriate methods of erosion and deposition control during site development and subsequent use (General Plan Action 25.17). Project developers shall incorporate measures to protect stream habitats and drainages on the site, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measures 7 through 14 (pertaining to biological resources) and mitigation measures 23 through 26 (pertaining to surface water drainage) of the Final EIR. Implementing these measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MO\673691.3 01- 110405 - 04706099 10- Resolution No. 2005 -81 E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Potentially Significant Impact — Flooding On- or Off -site. The project is not within a 100 - year flood zone as mapped by the FIRM issued by FEMA and therefore, would not place housing in a one percent flood zone. However, the project would increase the impervious surfaces at the project site and thus increase the site runoff, creating a need for additional floodwater retention on site. According to the Hydrologic Analysis (Schaaf & Wheeler 2003 and 2005 update), the impact of the increased peak discharge and runoff volume for all events can be mitigated through the construction of on -site detention. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring the Specific Plan include a detention pond or ponds to collect storm water in the case of peak storm events, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 23 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Potentially Significant Impact— Surface Water Quality During Construction. Grading will expose the soil to rain or wind erosion and subsequent transportation of the soils to on site drainages that may wash into Uvas Creek, the Pajaro River, and eventually Monterey Bay. Materials used and wastes generated during construction can also affect water quality. Wastes generated commonly include wash water from concrete mixers, paints and painting equipment cleaning activities, oil, grease and fuel constituents from vehicle use, storage and maintenance, solid wastes from vegetation removal during land clearing, and wood and paper materials from packaging of building products. Development of the project site would generate non -point source pollutants from newly established urban activity at the project site. Introduction of pollutants into a watercourse is considered a significant environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring future developers to comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measures 24 and 25 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 3. Potentially Significant Impact— Surface Water Quality During Operation. The project would introduce new urban pollutants to the project site and this may result in polluted storm water entering McCutchin Canyon, Reservoir Canyon, the on -site wetland, the existing drainages, Uvas Creek, the Pajaro River, and eventually Monterey Bay. This would be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring future applicants in the project area to prepare and implement a post - construction storm water management plan, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 26 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 1GB01673691.3 -11- 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 F. NOISE 1. Significant Impact— Increase in Traffic Noise Levels Along Santa Teresa Boulevard and Project Arterials. Buildout of the project would increase the existing traffic volumes by about 17 percent at Miller Avenue (Tenth Street) and by about 74 percent at Club Drive. Buildout of the General Plan would increase the existing traffic volumes by about 277 percent at Miller Avenue (Tenth Street) and by about 355 percent at Club Drive. In addition, internal project traffic along project arterials could also result in significant noise levels. This increase in traffic at General Plan buildout would result in significant noise impacts to development at the project site. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring future developers in the project area adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard to prepare and implement recommendations in a noise impact assessment to assure that these developments are in compliance with the City's noise standards, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 27 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Cumulative Impact on Noise at General Plan Buildout. The General Plan EIR found that future development within the City, consistent with the General Plan, will increase noise levels above the maximum permissible noise levels at existing, previously developed uses and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The project, consistent with the General Plan, will contribute to these impacts. This is a significant impact and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Statement of Overriding Considerations. See Section III. 3. Potentially Significant Impact– Short -Term Construction Noise. Short-term noise could occur from construction activities at the project site. The temporary elevation of noise may pose a significant impact to sensitive receptors off -site. Construction equipment typically generates noise levels in the range of 70 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. There are schools and residences in the vicinity that could be affected by the short-term noise increase. In addition, residences located near roads could be affected by increased noise levels from trucks hauling materials and equipment to the project site. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requiring future construction activities to comply with standard City requirements for construction scheduling and equipment, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 28 of the Final EIR, is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. G. TRANSPORTATION 1. Potentially Potentially Significant Impact— Unsafe Conditions at Highway 101 /Castro Valley Road. Although this existing T- intersection currently operates at acceptable LOS B in the AM peak hour and marginally acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour, the existing configuration and design speeds result in unsafe conditions for vehicles merging from Castro IGB01673691.3 -12- 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 Valley Road onto Highway 101. The project would add traffic to this existing hazardous situation. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the improvements to Castro Valley Road at the Highway 25 off -ramp, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 29 of the Final EIR, are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Gilroy to mitigate, but are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara to mitigate. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Potentially Significant Impact— Monterey Road/Masten Avenue Intersection Level of Service. Under Background Conditions, this intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS D+ during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour. The project would add traffic to this existing unacceptable level of service. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Fitzgerald and Masten approaches to the Monterey Road/Masten Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 30 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through the collection of impacts fees for these improvements. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 3. Potentially Significant Impact —Santa Teresa Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection Level of Service. Although the overall LOS at this intersection would be LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours under Background Conditions, the worst approach would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Miller Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 31 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through the collection of impacts fees for these improvements. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact— Monterey Road/Tenth Street Intersection Safety Impact. Although this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service under Background Plus Project Phase I Conditions, there would be a safety impact associated with left- turn movements. Causing an intersection to operate in a hazardous manner is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Monterey Road/Tenth Street intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 32 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 5. Potentially Significant Impact — Thomas Road /Luchessa Avenue Intersection Level of Service. Under Background plus Project Phase I Conditions, this intersection would operate at IGB01673691.3 -13- 01-110405-04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 unacceptable LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 33 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6. Potentially Significant Impact —Santa Teresa Boulevard /Fitzgerald Avenue Intersection Level of Service. Under Background plus Project Phase I and II Conditions, this intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 34 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 7. Potentially Significant Impact —Uvas Park Drive /Miller Avenue Intersection Level of Service. Under Background plus Project Phase I and II Conditions, this intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. In addition, Miller Avenue southwest of this intersection through Christmas Hill Park is designated as a local street in the General Plan. Due to projected traffic volume increases, there are safety issues that must be addressed through the park area. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection, and preparation and implementation of a traffic management plan at this location, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measures 35 and 36 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 8. Potentially Significant Impact —Santa Teresa Boulevard /First Street Intersection Level of Service. Under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario, this intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 37 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. GBO \673691.3 -14- 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 9. Potentially Significant Impact —Santa Teresa Boulevard /Ballybunion Drive Intersection Safety Impact. Although this intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario, there is a significant safety impact associated with left tuning movements under cumulative conditions. Causing an intersection to operate in a hazardous manner is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Ballybunion Drive intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 38 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 10. Potentially Significant Impact —Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue Level of Service. This intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Uvas Park Drive /Miller Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 39 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 11. Potentially Significant Impact — Princevalle Street/Tenth Street Intersection Safety Impact. Although this intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, there is a significant safety impact associated with left turn movements under Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario. Causing an intersection to operate in a hazardous manner is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Princevalle Street/Tenth Street intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 40 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 12. Potentially Significant Impact— Thomas Avenue /Luchessa Avenue Intersection Level of Service. With implementation of the mitigation measure required under the Project Phase I scenario, under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario this intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour with implementation of the roundabout and LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours with signalization and addition of a northbound right turn lane. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Thomas Avenue /Luchessa Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 41 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other 16601673691.3 -15- 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 13. Potentially Significant Impact — Princevalle Street/Luchessa Avenue Intersection Level of Service. This intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario. The worst approach (southbound) would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Princevalle Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 42 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 14. Potentially Significant Impact— Monterey Road/Luchessa Avenue Intersection Safety Impact. Although this intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, there is a significant safety impact associated with left turn movements under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario. Causing an intersection to operate in a hazardous manner is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Monterey Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 43 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 15. Potentially Significant Impact —Santa Teresa Boulevard /First Street Intersection Level of Service. This intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under the Cumulative Projects plus Phase III Scenario. Causing an intersection to operate at an unacceptable level is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 44 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. H. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potentially Significant Impact — Cultural Resources. The project site is located in an archaeologically - sensitive area. Accidental discovery of significant archaeological resources or human remains would be considered a significant, adverse environmental impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requirements for protecting accidentally discovered archaeological resources or human remains, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measures 45 and 46 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable IGB01673691.3 -16- 01- 110405 -04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Potentially Significant Impact— Pesticides and Hazardous Materials in the Soils. It is unknown whether pesticides or other potentially harmful chemicals have been applied during past agricultural production. If historical uses included the application of pesticides or other potentially harmful chemicals, future development of the site has the potential to result in health risks to construction workers and people in the vicinity during excavation of the soil. This is a potentially significant impact. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that requirements for identifying areas used for non- dryland crop production and preparation of environmental site assessments, as well as implementation of recommendation of those assessments, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measures 47 and 48 of the Final EIR, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. J. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 1. Potentially Significant Impact —Fire Hazards. The City Fire Marshal has determined that the project design has the potential to result in potentially significant fire hazards, mostly associated with the smaller lot sizes and the amount of open space and natural buffers provided for in the Specific Plan. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that the following measures to reduce the risks of significant fire hazards, are feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures: Project proponent shall prepare a program for monitoring the need for development of the new fire station, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 49. Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed in all residences over 3,000 square feet, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 50. Project proponent shall have an urban wildland interface planner or other professional acceptable to the City Fire Marshal to address vegetation in the preserved open space and evaluate fuel modeling and fire behavior for existing vegetation, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 51. The homeowner's association shall take full responsibility for management and maintenance of the preserved open space areas, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 52. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. IGB01673691.3 -17- 01- 110405 - 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 SECTION II. FINDINGS CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(d), the Final EIR identifies and evaluates the comparative merits of alternatives to the project, which could eliminate any significant adverse environmental impacts of the project or reduce them to a level of insignificance. These alternatives are evaluated in the Final EIR even if they would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. The project objectives are to develop a well - designed residential neighborhood consisting of a range of product types, including single family residential, multi - family residential, commercial, and associated public facilities such as schools, parks, and a potential fire station. The project is to contribute to the City's available housing stock to address the City's share of regional housing needs, including the development of workforce (i.e. affordable) and senior housing. Furthermore, the project objectives are to provide a planning tool that would be consistent with and provide implementation measures sufficient to execute the policies of the Neighborhood District as set forth in the Gilroy General Plan. The City of Gilroy policies for the Neighborhood District land use designation provide for more pedestrian friendly and less car dependent neighborhoods. It is the intention of the proposed project to create resident friendly neighborhoods, and build upon the City's more recent efforts to create pedestrian and bicycle accommodating roadways and paths, passive and active recreation, open spaces, and residences in proximity to jobs and commercial centers. A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Description. The no project alternative assumes that the Specific Plan area is not developed, but remains in its existing state. Comparison to the Proposed Project. This alternative would eliminate the project - specific, on -site impacts including aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and flooding, noise, transportation and traffic, cultural resources, mineral resources, public services, and utilities and service systems. However, because the project site is located within the existing city limits and is needed to meet the growing residential needs of the community, the no project alternative would likely result in new and unplanned growth beyond the existing city limits and urban service area, likely resulting in a greater degree of adverse, significant environmental impacts including, but not limited to, public services and loss of open space /farmland. Finding. The no project alternative would not meet the objectives of the Project and would not provide the variety of residential development needed by the City to meet its regional fair share housing requirements or provide tax revenues to the City from the commercial /retail portions of the project. This alternative is not consistent with the direction of the City's General Plan. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected. B. REVISED MIXED -USE PROJECT 1GB01673691.3 01- 110405 - 04706099 W:2 Resolution No. 2005 -81 Description. This alternative could be any combination of a mixed -use project consistent with the General Plan. Comparison to the Proposed Project. A revised mixed -use project would likely meet the objectives of the Project. However, the Project is consistent with the development densities and land use designations (Neighborhood District and Open Space) of the General Plan. The proposed uses within the Neighborhood District include various densities of residential, as well as commercial, public facilities, and parks. Therefore, because the Project proposes an appropriate mix of uses consistent with the General Plan, a revised mixed -use project was not evaluated in depth because it would not provide worthy data to foster informed decision making and public participation. Finding. The average residential density of the project is about 8.8 units per acre (1,693 units /192 acres), which is at the low end of the medium density range. Any reduction in the development densities of the Project (in an effort to reduce on -site environmental impacts) could result in off -site growth impacts, as anticipated growth within the City would need to occur elsewhere, most likely outside the City limits or the City's Urban Service Area. A revised mixed -use project would not result in a reduction of environmental impacts. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected. C. ALTERNATIVE LAND USES Description. This alternative would include an alternative land use such as industrial, commercial, or open space, or some combination thereof. Comparison to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not meet the basic objectives of the Project and would not be consistent with the General Plan. It would not provide the variety and number of housing required for the City to meet its regional fair share housing requirements. Industrial and/or commercial uses would provide additional taxes. Because the Project proposes an appropriate mix of uses consistent with the General Plan, an industrial /commercial /open space project was not evaluated in depth because it would not provide worthy data to foster informed decision making and public participation. Finding. The Project is consistent with the General Plan. An industrial/commercial /open space project would not be consistent with the General Plan and would not meet the basic project objectives. This type of alternative would not result in a reduction of environmental impacts. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected. D. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION 1 Description. This alternative project site has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood District and is located in the northern portion of the City's planning area. It is located outside of the City limits and Urban Service Area, north of Longmeadow Drive, south of Fitzgerald Avenue, east of Santa Teresa Boulevard, and west of Monterey Road. The size of the project could be accommodated within this area. Comparison to the Proposed Project. Llagas Creek and other drainages are located within this alternative location. This area is not served by municipal water and sewer, or other services, and 1GB01673691.3 _19- 01-110405-04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 because it is outside of the Urban Service Area, the City has made no provisions for serving development in this area in the near future. This area includes mostly Prime Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance as designated by the Department of Conservation and has a High" and "Moderate" agricultural suitability. Many of the parcels are currently under Williamson Act agricultural conservation contracts. Liquefaction hazards associated with seismic activity and soil conditions would be greater at the Project site than at this alternative location. Seismic hazards at the alternative site would be considered "Moderate ", and "High" and "Very High" in some areas. However, at either site, potential seismic and soils impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with construction and design consistent with the UBC. The potential for impacts to life and property due to flooding is greater at the alternative site where much of the area, especially east of Llagas Creek, is subject to 100 -year flood levels. Biological impacts may be less at the alternative site than at the Project site. Overall, although this alternative location is planned to be developed in the long -term, it should not be developed prior to development of the Project site. Finding. This alternative location would likely meet most, if not all of the Project objectives. However, alternative location 1 is outside of the City limits and the Urban Service Area, although it is within the City's long term planning area. The Project site is located both within the City limits and the Urban Service Area. Many of the environmental impacts, especially those associated with utilities, the provision of urban services, loss of important farmland, and flooding would be greater at this alternative location. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected. E. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION 2 Description. This alternative project site has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood District and is located in the southern portion of the City's planning area, generally east of Thomas Road, south of Luchessa Avenue, west of Uvas Creek, and northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard. This area is less than half the size of the Project site and could not accommodate the growth proposed in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan, thereby not meeting the objectives ofthe Project. Comparison to the Proposed Project. Although the General Plan designates this area for future Neighborhood District development, this entire area is outside of the existing Urban Service Area and the City limits. The entire site is comprised of Prime Farmland. The site does have access to VTA public transit, as there is a route that traverses along Thomas Road. The site is adjacent to an existing bike trail and includes future bikeways. Liquefaction hazards associated with seismic activity and soil conditions would be similar at the Project site. Seismic hazards at the alternative site would be considered "Moderate" and "Moderately High ". However, at either site, potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with construction and design consistent with the UBC. Based on the proximity of the alternative site to the Project site, biological impacts may be similar although would not impact as large of an area since the site is considerably smaller. Overall, although this alternative location is planned to be developed in the long -term, it should not be developed prior to development of the Project site. Finding. This alternative location would not meet the Project objectives, as it is about one -half the size of the Project. This alternative is outside of the city limits and the Urban Service Area, although it is within the City's long term planning area. The Project site is located both within 1GB01673691.3 -20- 01- 110405- 04706099 Resolution No. 2005 -81 the City limits and the Urban Service Area. Many of the environmental impacts, especially those associated with utilities, the provision of urban services, and the loss of important farmland, would be greater at this alternative location. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected. SECTION III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project. A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts that are included in the record, the City has determined that the Project will result in significant unmitigated project impacts to Air Quality and cumulative impacts to Air Quality and Noise, as disclosed in the Final EIR. These impacts, though partially mitigated, would not be reduced to a less than significant level by feasible changes to the Project, and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce theses impact to less than significant levels. B. Overriding Considerations The City Council finds that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant impacts on the environment where feasible. The City Council finds that each of the benefits set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the risks of its unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. The benefits of the Project, which constitute the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations that justify the approval of the Project, are set forth below. C. Benefits of the Project 1. The Project will provide the following variety of housing opportunities that help the City meet its regional fair share housing requirements: 250 senior, senior affordable, and affordable units; 1443 market rate residential units including low- density, medium - density, and high - density units. 2. The Project will provide, or enable to be provided, the following public service facilities: schools, fire station, parks, and recreation trails. The Project is also designed at a density to make public transportation desirable, providing forms of transportation alternative to the automobile. 3. The Project will contribute to the City's tax base through the commercial /retail development. IGB01673691.3 01- 110405-04706099 21- Resolution No. 2005 -81 4. The Project is an economical and efficient use of land that helps to reduce urban sprawl and thereby preserve open space and agricultural uses surrounding Gilroy by directing development to an area in the middle of the City surrounded by urban development. The City Council hereby finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable Air Quality impacts and the significant and unavoidable cumulative Air Quality and Noise impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR. 1GB01673691.3 01- 110405-04706099 signatures on following page] 22- Resolution No. 2005 -81 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: CORREA, DILLON, GARTMAN, MORALES, VALIQUETTE, VELASCO, and PINHEIRO NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ATTE T: v//iLfZl Rhonda Pellin, City Clerk 1GB016736913 01- 110405 - 04706099 23- NONE NONE ert Pinheiro, Mayor Resolution No. 2005 -81 WOMMM .mss a--.q. -OMMI.,. - Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Summary TABLE S -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Area of Impact Level ofLevel Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Number Impact Aesthetics Visual character as seen from Significant 1 Prepare and implement Yes Santa Teresa Boulevard Landscaped Buffer Plan Aesthetics Visual character as seen from Significant 2 Submit visual simulations with Yes Santa Teresa Boulevard future tentative map applications Air Quality Violation of air, quality Significant N/A None identified No standards /conflict with the CAP and Unavoidable Air Quality Construction emissions Significant 3 Dust control measures Yes Biological Burrowing owl Significant 4 Pre - construction field surveys Yes Resources during nesting season Biological Loggerhead shrike and nesting Significant 5 Pre - construction tree surveys Yes Resources raptors during nesting season Biological Bat roosts and sensitive bat species Significant 6 Pre - construction surveys Yes Resources Biological Riparian habitat, waters of the Significant 7 Project design with adequate, Yes Resources I U.S. protective buffers EMC Planning Group Inc. S -3 M X x H H H i Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Summa Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Significance Number spa Biological Riparian habitat, drainage courses Significant 8 Project design to avoid filling Yes Resources or disturbance of riparian areas/ Construction activities during dry months /Prepare Habitat Restoration Plan Biological Loss of oak and /or riparian Significant 9 Prepare and implement Habitat Yes Resources woodland habitat Restoration Plan Biological Construction of Reservoir Canyon Significant 10 Biologist to monitor Yes Resources Creek bridge construction of bridge Biological Management of open space, Significant 11 Prepare and implement Yes Resources woodland, riparian, or other suitable ownership structure to habitat conservation easements ensure maintenance and funding of natural areas Biological Disturbance to serpentine Significant 12 Active management including Yes Resources grassland fencing and signage Biological Siltation of riparian/ drainage Significant 13 Siltation fencing and other Yes Resources areas during construction BMP's during construction activities Biological Landscaping- related Significant 14 Prepare landscape plan Yes Resources contamination of drainages Biological Disturbance to jurisdictional Significant 15 Prepare wetland delineation/ Yes Resources waters of the U.S. Obtain necessary permits/ Prepare detailed wetland mitigation plan Biological Wildlife movement corridors Significant 16 Submit lighting plan with Yes Resources future tentative map applications EMC Planning Group Inc. S-4 MAW M M M M M M M = M in Am _ m M. Am Aff. Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Summary Area of Impart Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Significance Number Impact Biological Wildlife movement corridors Significant 17 Prepare signage plan to address Yes Resources off -trail human disturbance Biological Tree removal Significant 18 Field survey by arborist and Yes Resources report of findings Biological Tree disturbance during Significant 19 Protection of trees during Yes Resources construction construction Geology and Seismic activity relative to soil Significant 20 Submit soils investigation/ Yes Soils stability Incorporate recommendations into final building plans Geology and Seismic effects on structural Significant 21 Design structures in Yes Soils integrity accordance with Uniform Building Code for seismic design Geology and Fault rupture hazard zone on site. Significant 22 Prepare fault investigation/ Yes Soils Implement recommendations in fault investigation Geology and Soil erosion impacts on drainages Significant 7,8,10, 13, See Mitigation Measures Yes Soils and biological resources 24,25,26 referenced in column to the left Hydrology and Flooding on- and off -site from Significant 23 Implement detention pond(s) Yes Flooding increased site runoff to accommodate 100 -year flood levels Hydrology and Storm water quality during Significant 24 Prepare storm water pollution Yes Flooding construction due to polluted runoff prevention plan ( SWPPP)/ impacts on drainages Submit SWPPP to RWQCB and City of Gilroy Planning Group Inc. S -5 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Summary Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Significance Number Impact Hydrology and Work within 50 -feet of water Significant 25 Obtain permit(s) from Yes Flooding courses under jurisdiction of SCVWD SCVWD Hydrology and Storm water quality during Significant 26 Prepare post - construction Yes Flooding operation storm water management plan /Implement BMP's during project operation Noise Traffic noise Significant 27 Prepare noise impact Yes assessment/ Implement recommendations/ Sensitivity to visual qualities of sound attenuation features Noise Cumulative traffic noise Significant N/A Gilroy General Plan policies No and 26.01 through 26.05 Unavoidable Noise Construction noise Significant 28 Limit construction Yes hours /Mufflers on equipment /Distance loud stationary equipment from sensitive receptors Transportation/ Background Conditions) Safety at Significant 29 Roadway extension at Castro Yes Traffic Hwy 101 /Castro Valley Rd Valley Rd Transportation/ Background Conditions) LOS at Significant 30 Addition of turning lanes/ Yes Traffic Monterey Rd /Masten Ave Change signal phasing Transportation/ Background Conditions) LOS at Significant 31 Signalization at intersection Yes Traffic Santa Teresa Blvd /Miller Ave EMC Planning Group Inc. S -6 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Summary Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Significance Number Impact Transportation/ Background Plus Project Phase I Significant 32 Change signal phasing for east- Yes Traffic Conditions) Safety at Monterey west travel Rd /Tenth St Transportation/ Background Plus Project Phase I Significant 33 Implement roundabout at Yes Traffic Conditions) LOS at Thomas intersection/or Signalize Rd /Luchessa Ave intersection Transportation/ Background Plus Project Phase I Significant 34 Signalize intersection /Add Yes Traffic and II Conditions) LOS at Santa east- and west -bound turn lanes Teresa Blvd /Fitzgerald Ave Transportation/ Background Plus Project Phase I Significant 35 Add northbound left turn lane Yes Traffic and II Conditions) LOS at Uvas Park Dr /Miller Ave 36 Prepare and implement traffic Yes management plan of Miller Ave southwest of Uvas Park Dr Add second east- and west- Yes Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 37 bound left turn lanes Traffic Traffic Conditions) LOS at Santa Teresa Blvd /First St Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 38 Add southbound left turn Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) Intersection land /Change north -south safety at Santa Teresa signal phasing Blvd /Ballybunion Dr EMC Planning Group Inc. S -7 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Summary Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Signcanceifi Number Impact Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 39 Signalize Uvas Park Dr /Miller Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) LOS at Uvas Ave intersection /Add north - Park Dr /Miller Ave and south -bound turn lanes see text for options) Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 40 Change signal phasing at Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) Intersection intersection safety at Princevalle St /Tenth St Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 41 Add second lane to Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) LOS at roundabout /or Add a second Thomas Ave /Luchessa Ave westbound left turn lane and westbound through lane /Widen Luchessa bridge to 4 lanes Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 42 Signalize intersection /Add an Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) LOS at eastbound left turn lane Princevalle St /Luchessa Ave Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 43 Add second north- and west- Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) Intersection bound left turn lanes at safety at Monterey Rd /Luchessa intersection Ave Transportation/ Cumulative Plus Project Phase III Significant 44 Add an east- and west -bound Yes Traffic Traffic Conditions) LOS at Santa through lane on First St at Teresa Blvd /First St intersection Cultural Discovery of buried archaeological Significant 45 Halt construction if resources Yes Resources resources are encountered/ Hire a qualified archaeologist to identify the resource EMC Planning Group Inc. S -8 is moo i lkw f 10 air ANOM. M M 1 M M ! 1 1 7 Glen Loma Ranch Speck Plan Revised Draft EIR Summary Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Mitigated Concern Significance Number Impact Cultural Discovery of human remains Significant 46 Halt disturbance/ Contact Yes Resources coroner /Provide for proper burial if remains are of Native American heritage Hazards Human contact with persistent Significant 47 Identify former agricultural Yes pesticides in soil areas where pesticides may have been applied 48 Use map (see mitigation 47) to Yes develop and implement soil sampling plan to determine contaminant levels /Clean and dispose of any contaminated soils Public Services Demand for fire services Significant 49 Program to monitor need for Yes new fire station Public Services Fire safety - homes Significant 50 Install residential fire sprinklers Yes Public Services Fire safety — open space Significant 51 Prepare report to address Yes vegetative fuel management and appropriate fuel transition zones 52 HOA to manage seasonal Yes vegetation to reduce fuel loading Note: The mitigation measures identified above present a brief summary of the actual mitigation measures. The full text of the mitigation measures is presented in the correlating section of this EIR. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -9 EXHIBIT B Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 project 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 Final EIR. EMC Planning Group Inc. Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lom. ,nch Specific Plan Final EIR 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: 1. 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; 2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be returned to the Community Development Department; 3. The Gilroy Community Development Department will review the checklist to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with at the appropriate time, e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for project approvals; and 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 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. 2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific, , i Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Step 1 Prior to approval of the Specific Plan, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 23. The specific plan shall be revised to include a detention pond or ponds to collect storm water in the case of 2 -, 10 -, 25 -, and 100 -year peak storm events. Detention ponds shall be designed according to the recommendations presented in the Hydrologic Analysis (Schaaf & Wheeler 2005) and should include, but not be limited to the following: a. The pond(s) should be located to collect the storm water runoff from the project site and discharge to either McCutchin or Reservoir Creeks. b. Any discharge from the pond(s) should release a maximum of storm water runoff for pre- project conditions (see tables 18 and 19 in the Draft EIR). C. The pond(s) should be sized a total ofapproximately 8.9 acre -feet to provide for appropriate storm water quantities and filter pollutants for the purpose of water quality. d. The pond(s) shall not replace any proposed preserved open space at the project site, as the preserved open space provides flood control and water quality benefits modeled in the Hydrological Analysis (Schaaf & Wheeler 2003). Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Step 2 Prior to approval of the first tentative map, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to the approval of the first tentative map, the project proponent shall prepare a Santa Teresa Boulevard Landscaped Buffer Plan to include, but not be limited to, the following components: A buffer along the entire length of the boulevard, in varying identified widths depending upon topography and views into the site; Landscaping along Santa Teresa Boulevard to enhance and blend into the natural landscape and screen, to the greatest extent feasible, views of structures including berm /sound wall combinations; Design options for entry features consistent with General Plan policy 1.10; Design options for berm /sound wall combinations and signs; and EMC Planning Group Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon. .nch Specific Plan Final EIR Class I Santa Teresa Multi-Use Regional Trail. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 12. The preserved serpentine rocky grassland on site shall be actively managed to reduce indirect impacts resulting from public use. This may include ranch -style wood fencing surrounding the knoll to protect the area from off -road vehicle use. Additionally, a short trail system could be installed to direct public access with interpretive signs at trailheads to educate the public on the uniqueness of the serpentine grassland community. The project proponent of any future development on the project site shall include habitat management measures in future project plans, subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division prior to approval of the tentative map for Canyon Creek and /or Rocky Knoll, whichever occurs first. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 47. Prior to approval of the first tentative map, the applicant shall provide written verification and mapping of the approximate 17 percent of the project site previously used for non - dryland crop use (e.g., wine grapes, tomatoes, cucumbers, strawberries). Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 48. Prior to approval of tentative maps, use permits, or architectural review applications of neighborhoods identified as part of mapping required in Mitigation Measure #47, the developer shall have a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared. Based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, clean up and disposal of such contamination, ifpresent, shall be in compliance with federal, state and local regulations governing the clean -up and disposal of hazardous waste. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 49. Prior to approval ofthe first tentative map, the project proponent shall prepare a program for monitoring the need for development of the new fire station. The monitoring program shall be consistent with the requirements of the development agreement between the project proponent and the City of Gilroy and is subject to review by the City Fire Marshal. EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific i Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Fire Marshal 51. Prior to approval of the first tentative map, the project proponent shall have an urban wildland interface planner ", or other professional acceptable to the City of Gilroy Fire Marshal, prepare a report to address the vegetation in the Preserved Open Space and evaluate fuel management and modification. The report shall be based on fuel modeling and fire behavior for the existing vegetation. As each neighborhood adjacent to the Preserved Open Space is developed, the recommendations of the report shall be implemented by the developer in the adjacent Preserved Open Space. The required width of the Fuel Transition Zones shall also be at least the width as recommended in the report. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Fire Marshal Step 3 Prior to approval of each tentative map or use permit, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 7. Prior to approval of each tentative map or use permit, project plans for future development on the project site shall be designed to include adequate buffer areas to protect wetlands, waters of the U.S., oak /riparian woodland, and other open space areas to be preserved in the specific plans area (coastal scrub areas, mixed cultivated woodland, and rocky serpentine grassland areas), subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. Project plans shall indicate that no development is to occur within 100 feet of a defined creek bank or edge of riparian corridor. Project plans shall indicate that no development is to occur within 50 feet of other open space areas; however, this setback may be reduced due to site constraints or to accomplish specific project goals subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, but shall in no event be less than 30 feet. Wherever possible, buffer areas shall be planted with locally - obtained native grasses, shrubs and woodland understory species. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring. Gilroy Planning Division 8. Prior to approval of each tentative map or use permit, project plans for future development on the project site shall be designed to avoid unnecessary filling or other disturbance of natural drainage courses and associated oak /riparian woodland vegetation to the greatest extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. In the event that disturbance of site drainages and associated oak /riparian woodland vegetation cannot be avoided (i.e., Reservoir Canyon Creek Bridge construction, culverts, storm drain outfalls, etc.), authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon. .inch Specific Plan Final EIR through Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code and /or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Regional Water Quality Control Board through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act shall be obtained, if required, prior to issuance ofbuilding or grading permits for any activity that might encroach on the site's drainages. Conditions imposed on these permits and /or authorizations may include but not be limited to the following: Construction work shall be initiated and completed during the summer and fall months when the drainages are dry, or at least have a very low flow. Typically, no construction work shall be allowed between October 15th and April 15th. A Habitat Restoration Plan shall be prepared to identify the exact amount and location of affected and replacement habitat, to specify on -site revegetation with locally - obtained native species within the buffer areas to mitigate habitat loss, and to provide specifications for installation and maintenance of the replacement habitat. Any loss of riparian or wetland vegetation resulting from construction activities shall be mitigated on -site at a minimum 3:1 replacement ratio. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 13. Prior to approval of each individual tentative map or use permit, subject to the review of the Gilroy Planning Division, the project applicant shall install siltation fencing, hay bales, or other suitable erosion control measures along portions of natural and manmade drainage channels in which construction will occur and within 20 feet of construction and /or staging areas in order to prevent sediment from filling the creek. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring. Gilroy Planning Division 15. Prior to approval of a tentative map for each phase of the proposed project requiring removal or alteration to potential wetlands and /or waters of the U.S., a wetland delineation shall be prepared according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. The actual acreage of impacts to waters of the U.S. and wetlands shall be determined based on project plans for each development project and the wetland delineation for each development phase. The project proponent shall obtain all necessary permits and /or approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and shall retain a restoration specialist to prepare a detailed wetland mitigation plan, if necessary, subject to review and approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, creation of wetlands on site to mitigate for 6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific .7 Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. and wetlands resulting from development activities. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 17. Prior to approval of a tentative map for each phase of the proposed project containing or adjacent to preserved natural open space areas, a signage plan shall be prepared to outline the language, number and location of signs to dissuade people from straying off trails and to prohibit unleashed dogs in the open space areas, subject to approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 18. Prior to tentative map or use permit approval of areas that contain any significant tree(s), a field survey shall be conducted by a certified arborist to determine the number and location of each significant tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of each significant tree, and the reason for removal. These findings shall be included in a written report that contains specifications for replacing significant trees to be removed. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 22. Project developers shall have a fault investigation performed for each tentative map or site plan approval within the fault rupture zone to determine ifthere is an active fault located within the fault rupture zone. The investigation shall determine, but not be limited to, the location of the fault (if any), and the anticipated severity of seismic activity of the fault. A copy of the report shall be presented to the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara Planning Office. Project developers shall use the findings of the report for structural design or avoidance of the potential hazard. The fault investigations shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineering Division, prior to the approval of tentative maps and /or architectural and site plan approval. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 27. Future developers adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard, and along internal project arterials, shall prepare a noise impact assessment, by a noise consultant acceptable to the City, to determine if the project would be significantly affected by general plan buildout traffic volumes. If the noise impact assessment EMC Planning Group Inc. 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon,. .inch Specific Plan Final EIR concludes that the project would not meet the noise standards of the general plan, the project shall be redesigned to be consistent with the general plan noise element policy 26.03 and 26.05, and with the noise standards in the Guidelines for Sound Attenuation and Visual Preservation of the Santa Teresa Boulevard Corridor Policy. The noise attenuation feature shall be no higher than seven feet above the existing grade at the property line. The appropriate height of the noise attenuation feature shall be incorporated into applicable tentative maps prior to their approval. Noise attenuation features shall be landscaped and primarily consist of earthen berms, and an appropriate funding mechanism for maintenance shall be identified. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Step 4 Prior to recordation of the first final map and /or final improvement plans, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 11. Prior to recordation of the first final map within the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area, the project proponent shall ensure that a suitable ownership structure i.e., homeowner's association or similar mechanism) is established prior to occupancy to take long -term responsibility for maintaining and funding the ongoing management of any open space, woodland, vegetated riparian, or other habitat conservation easements on site. The homeowners' association, or other suitable mechanism, shall be structured so that it is responsible for enforcing habitat protection and maintenance measures to protect onsite biological resources. The homeowners' association may assess fines to property owners who are non - compliant with these measures. Fines assessed by the homeowner's association shall be used for on -site habitat protection, maintenance, and restoration, as necessary. Any noncompliance shall be reported to the City of Gilroy Planning Division and the California Department of Fish and Game by the homeowners association. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 16. A schematic lighting plan shall be submitted with each development proposal for review and approval by the Planning Division. Exterior lighting for any development proposed adjacent to open space areas shall be oflow stature (i.e., 20 feet) and shall be of a full cutoff design or include opaque shields to reduce illumination of the surrounding landscape. Lighting shall be directed away from open space areas. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specitt, A Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 26. Future applicants in the Glen Loma Ranch specific plan area shall prepare a post - construction storm water management plan, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Engineering Division prior to the approval of final improvement plans, that shall include structural and non - structural best management practices BMPs) for the reduction of pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Step 5 Prior to approval of each final grading plan, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 3. Project proponents shall specify in project plans the implementation of the following dust control measures during grading and construction activities for any proposed development. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust, subject to the review and approval by the City of Gilroy Engineering 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; and Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites greater than four acres in area: Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; EMC Planning Group Inc. Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Long. .nch Specific Plan Final EIR Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The following measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emission reductions: Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; Install wind breaks, or plant trees /vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour; and Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Step 6 30 days prior to commencement of grading or construction activities, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 4. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no more than 30 days prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for development proposed in or adjacent to potential habitat (i.e., grasslands), field surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if burrowing owls are present in the construction zone or within 200 feet of the construction zone. Areas within 200 feet of the construction zone that are not within the control of the applicant shall be visually assessed from the project site. These surveys shall be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season of burrowing owls (February 1 through August 31) and /or during the winter residency period (December 1 through January 31). If active nests are found within the survey area, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. The burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall contain mitigation measures contained in the California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). The habitat mitigation plan may include, but not be limited to, the following: Avoidance of occupied burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31); 10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific. .n Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 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; and /or Passive relocation ofburrowing owls. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 5. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no more than 30 days prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for development proposed in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat (i.e., riparian woodland and oak woodland), a tree survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nest(s) of protected birds are present in the trees. Areas within 200 feet of the construction zone that are not within the control of the applicant shall be visually assessed from the project site. This survey shall be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season of protected bird species potentially nesting in the tree (generally March 1 through August 1). If active nest(s) are found, clearing and construction within 200 feet of the tree, or as recommended by the qualified biologist, shall be halted until the nest(s) are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. If construction activities are not scheduled between March 1 and August 1, no further shrike or tree surveys shall be required. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 6. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no more than 30 days prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for development proposed in or adjacent to potential roost habitat (i.e., riparian woodland and oak woodland), pre - construction surveys for bat roosts shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If bat roost sites are found, the biologist shall implement a program to remove /displace the bats prior to the removal of known roost sites. In addition, an alternate roost site shall be constructed in the vicinity of the known roost site. Specifications of the alternate roost shall be determined by a bat specialist. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 19. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the protected zone of any trees or groups of trees to be retained shall be fenced to prevent injury to the trees EMC Planning Group Inc. 11 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon. nch Specific Plan Final EIR during construction. Soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and /or dumping of materials shall not be allowed within the protected zone. The fencing shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Step 7 Prior to approval and issuance of the first building permit in Phase I, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 30. Add an eastbound and a westbound left -turn lane on the Fitzgerald and Masten approaches to the Monterey Road /Masten Avenue intersection, and change the east -west signal phasing from split phasing to protected phasing. This intersection is within the City of Gilroy's Transportation Master Plan and therefore, impact fees are collected for improvements at this intersection. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the project proponent, prior to issuance of the first building permit. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 31. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard /Miller Avenue intersection. This intersection is within the City of Gilroy's Transportation Master Plan and therefore, impact fees are collected for improvements at this intersection. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the project proponent, prior to issuance of the first building permit. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring. Gilroy Engineering Division 32. Change the signal phasing at the Monterey Road /Tenth Street intersection for the east -west travel direction from permitted phasing to protected phasing. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 12 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific, .n Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 33. Convert the Thomas Road /Luchessa Avenue intersection to a one -lane modern roundabout. M Signalize the Thomas Road /Luchessa Avenue intersection, add a northbound right turn lane, and add a northbound right turn overlap phasing to the signal phasing. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase I. Note: The mitigated negative declaration for the planned elementary school within the specific plan, located on Luchessa Avenue within the Cabernet neighborhood, required implementation of this mitigation measure prior to opening the school. It was required due to unacceptable levels of services during the mid - afternoon peak hour. The mitigation measure requires the school district to pay their fair share of this improvement determined by agreement between the school district and the City of Gilroy. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring. Gilroy Engineering Division Step 8 Prior to approval and issuance of the first building permit in Phase II, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard /Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 35. Add a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive /Miller Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent EMC Planning Group Inc. 13 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lot,. inch Specific Plan Final EIR Party responsiblefor monitoring. Gilroy Engineering Division 36. Prepare a traffic management plan of the Miller Avenue street section southwest of the intersection with Uvas Park Drive. The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City staff and constructed by the project, prior to issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Step 9 Prior to approval and issuance of the first building permit in Phase III, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 37. Add second eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard /First Street intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 38. Add a southbound left turn lane to the Santa Teresa Boulevard /Ballybunion Drive intersection and convert the north -south signal phasing from permitted phasing to protected phasing. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive /Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and southbound left -turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific, .n Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program Note: This intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours with implementation of this improvement. However, under General Plan Buildout Conditions, the Tenth Street Bridge would be required to be constructed. With the Tenth Street Bridge, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour with NO improvements, e.g. signalization and lane additions. Therefore, the mitigation measure identified above would not be required under General Plan Buildout Conditions, assuming the Tenth Street Bridge were constructed. One option would be to only add the northbound left -turn lane as recommended in the previous scenario (Background Plus Project Phases I and II) and consider LOS E as an acceptable short term level of service for this intersection. Another option is to implement the mitigation measure above (signalize the intersection and add the left -turn lanes, which would improve operations to LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours), with the knowledge that the signal could be removed once the Tenth Street Bridge is constructed at General Plan Buildout Conditions. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring. Gilroy Engineering Division 40. Convert the signal phasing at the Princevalle Street /Tenth Street intersection from permitted phasing to protected phasing. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 41. If the Thomas Road /Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. If the Thomas Road /Luchesss Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right turn lane was added, add a second westbound left turn lane and westbound through lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. EMC Planning Group Inc. 15 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon,, inch Specific Plan Final EIR Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring. Gilroy Engineering Division 42. Signalize the Princevalle Street /Luchessa Avenue intersection and add an eastbound left turn lane. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 43. Add second northbound and westbound left turn lanes at the Monterey Street /Luchessa Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 44. Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Step 10 Prior to approval and issuance of building or grading permits, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 9. Any loss of oak and /or riparian woodland habitat resulting from development shall require the project proponent to retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Restoration Plan to identify the exact amount and location of affected and replacement habitat, specify an appropriate plant palette, and provide specifications for installation and maintenance of the replacement habitat. Replacement vegetation shall consist of locally - obtained native plant species. Any loss of riparian woodland vegetation shall be mitigated on -site at a minimum 16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specific. i Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program of 3:1 replacement ratio, unless otherwise determined by the Department of Fish and Game and the City of Gilroy. Any loss of oak woodland vegetation shall require preservation of on -site oak woodland at a ratio of 3:1 and replanting on- site at a ratio of 1: 1, unless otherwise determined by the Department of Fish and Game and the City of Gilroy. The Habitat Restoration Plan shall be prepared prior to issuance of building or grading permits for any activity requiring removal of oak and /or riparian woodland habitat, subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division and California Department of Fish and Game. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 14. Prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits, the project proponent of any future development on the project site shall submit a Landscape Plan, for review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division. Landscaping plans for areas adjacent to riparian habitat shall include appropriate guidelines to prevent contamination of drainages and their associated riparian habitat by pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers. Landscaping shall include appropriate native plants species and should not include plantings of non - native, invasive plant species. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 20. Project proponents shall submit a soils investigation prepared by a qualified soils engineer for future development on the project site. The recommendation of the soils investigation shall be incorporated into final building plans, subject to the review and approval by the Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of any building permits. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 21. The project applicant shall design all structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code for seismic design. In addition, all recommendations in the geotechnical reports prepared for the project shall be implemented. Structural design is subject to the review and approval by the Gilroy BLES Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Building, Life, and Environmental Safety Division EMC Planning Group Inc. 17 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon.. ,inch Specific Plan Final EIR 24. The project applicant for any proposed development on the project site, shall, for each phase of the development, submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and detailed engineering designs to the Central Coast RWQCB. The associated permit shall require development and implementation of a SWPPP that uses storm water Best Management Practices" to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from the site. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices that address source reduction and, if necessary, shall include practices that require treatment. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Gilroy Engineering Division for review and approval prior to approval of a building permit for each phase of the project. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 25. The project applicant shall submit plans for review by, and obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) prior to any work within 50 feet of on -site drainages, wetlands or riparian habitat. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for all areas within the Specific Plan area, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project plans to mitigate construction noise, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division: a. Construction shall be limited to weekdays between 7 AM and 7 PM and Saturdays and holidays between 9 AM and 7 PM, with no construction on Sundays; b. All internal combustion engine- driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; and c. Stationary noise - generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specif), n Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 45. Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during construction, the following language shall be included on any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited to building permits for future development, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division: If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate it. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 46. 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), subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division: 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 (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. EMC Planning Group Inc. 19 Mitigation Monitoring Program Glen Lon. -inch Specific Plan Final EIR Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Step 11 Prior to approval of commencement of construction activities associated with the Reservoir Canyon Creek Bridge, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 10. Prior to commencement of construction activities associated with Reservoir Canyon Creek Bridge, the project proponent responsible for construction of the bridge shall arrange for a qualified biologist to monitor bridge construction activities to ensure there are no impacts to wetlands and associated oak /riparian woodland habitat. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Step 12 Prior to approval of the first occupancy permit, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 50. Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed in all residences within the specific plan area over 3,000 square feet, including single- family and multi - family town homes or apartments, and residential clusters with more than 25 units that lack secondary access. Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed prior to occupancy. Prior to approval of future development projects within the specific plan area, the City Fire Marshal may require that all residences have residential fire sprinkler systems, regardless of conditions stated above, especially if streets are narrow, buildings are closely spaced, emergency response time is not met, there is inadequate fire flow, building are adjacent to natural areas, or other conditions exist that could hinder the ability of the City of Gilroy Fire Department to perform fire suppression acts in such case they would be needed. The sprinklers shall be designed and installed in accordance with City of Gilroy Fire Department policies. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsiblefor monitoring. Gilroy Fire Marshal 52. The Glen Loma Ranch Homeowner's Association shall take full responsibility for management and maintenance of the preserved open space areas within the project site. Seasonal vegetation management should be scheduled to occur at the end of the rainy season and consistent with the annual weed abatement resolution. The HOA should implement any vegetation management in the Preserved Open Spaces and Fuel Transition Zones at the beginning of the weed 20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Glen Loma Ranch Specit). .i Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program abatement season. This language shall be included in the HOA conditions, covenants, and restrictions. Party responsiblefor implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Note: Mitigation measure 29 is not the responsibility of the project proponent. 29. Lengthen the existing southbound acceleration lane at Castro Valley Road as an auxiliary lane between Castro Valley Road and the off -ramp to Highway 25. The combined acceleration/ auxiliary lane would extend the nearly 2,000 feet between Castro Valley Road and the off -ramp to Highway 25. This intersection is outside of the City of Gilroy's Transportation Master Plan and therefore, impact fees are not collected for improvements at this intersection. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the County of Santa Clara. Party responsible for implementation: County ofSanta Clara Party responsible for monitoring: County ofSanta Clara EMC Planning Group Inc. 21 I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2005 -81 is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a city resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of November, 2005, at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 11th day of January, 2006. I z; City Clerk of the City of Gilroy Seal) Source: RJA & Associates 2005, EMC Planning Group Inc. 2005 Figure 10Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIRPhasing ExhibitNot to Scale Received by city of Gilroy Planning Division July 30, 2021 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP TM 20-05, A SUBDIVISION OF A 41.4+/- ACRE SITE INTO 40 COMPACT SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS IN THE CANYON CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD; SIX LOTS FOR THE CREATION OF 41 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE ROCKY KNOLL NEIGHBORHOOD; AND NINE LOTS FOR THE CREATION OF 42 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE MALVASIA II NEIGHORHOOD, FOR A TOTAL OF 55 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 123 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; ONE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PARCEL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SANTA TERESA TRAIL; ONE PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT FOR THE ROCKY KNOLL TRAIL; 18 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PARCELS THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION; AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF SANTA TERESA BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF WEST LUCHESSA AVENUE (APN # 808-18-032 and 808-58-005), FILED BY GLEN LOMA GROUP/FILICE FAMILY ESTATE, 7888 WREN AVENUE, SUITE D-143, GILROY, CA 95020. WHEREAS, The Glen Loma Group/Filice Family Estate submitted an application requesting a tentative map to subdivide an approximate 41.4+/- acre site into 40 compact single-family lots in the Canyon Creek neighborhood; six lots for the creation of 41 townhouse units in the Rocky Knoll neighborhood; and nine lots for the creation of 42 townhouse units in the Malvasia II neighborhood, for a total of 55 residential lots and 123 residential units; one public open space parcel for the construction of the Santa Teresa trail; one public trail easement for the Rocky Knoll Trail; 18 private open space parcels that will be maintained by the homeowners’ association; and associated public and private streets; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area, northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard, south and southwest of West Luchessa Avenue, commonly known as the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan, application GPA 00-01 (Resolution 2005-82); and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan (Resolution 2005-81); and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted the Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement (Ordinance 2005-22); and Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 2 WHEREAS, tentative map (TM 20-05) was referred to various public utility companies and City departments, including the City of Gilroy Technical Advisory Committee for recommendations and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15182 (Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), exempts residential projects pursuant to a specific plan from further environmental review under CEQA, as long as the project meets the requirements of that section, and City Staff has determined that the proposed residential subdivision meets the requirements of section 15182 such that no further environmental analysis is required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed residential subdivision meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15182 because: 1. The Gilroy City Council certified the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program with adoption of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan on November 7, 2005; and 2. Tentative Map application TM 20-05 is a residential project implementing the approved Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan and 2005 EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program; and 3. Tentative Map application TM 20-05 was undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with the approved Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. WHEREAS, a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan has been prepared, consistent with the certified EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2024, at which time the Planning Commission considered the public testimony, the staff report dated May 2, 2024, the 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan, the 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the Gilroy General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, other applicable standards and regulations, and all other documentation related to TM 20-05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that TM 20-05 conforms to the City's General Plan and elements thereof, including the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan” and the “Neighborhood District Policy”; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that no additional CEQA analysis is required, and that all 141 conditions including incorporation of the mitigation measures pursuant to the adopted 2005 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program are necessary to preserve, protect, provide for, and foster the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work, visit or live in this subdivision in particular; and Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 3 WHEREAS, in order to deny the map, the Planning Commission would have to make one of the listed findings described in Government Code Section 66474 based upon substantial evidence in the record. The findings are listed below, along with an explanation for each one as to why the Planning Commission cannot make the finding: A. The proposed subdivision TM 20-05 is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in 65451. This Finding cannot be made. The proposed subdivision TM 20-05 is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the City’ General Plan, “Glen Loma Specific Plan” and the City’s “Neighborhood District Policy”; B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision TM 20-05 is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. This Finding cannot be made. The proposed subdivision TM 20-05 is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the City’ General Plan, “Glen Loma Specific Plan” and the City’s “Neighborhood District Policy.” C. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because it is generally consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Land Development Code; D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because it is generally consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the goals and policies of the “Glen Loma Specific Plan” and the City’s “Neighborhood District Policy”; E. That the design of the proposed subdivision TM 20-05 or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This Finding cannot be made. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife because the site is located within a developed urban context and is not in or adjacent to any sensitive habitat areas; F. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. This Finding cannot be made. The design of the proposed subdivision TM 20-05 will not cause serious public health problems because the site is located within an urban context and has access to urban services including sewer and water; and Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 4 G. That the design of the proposed subdivision TM 20-05 or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This Finding cannot be made. The design of the proposed subdivision TM 20-05 will not conflict with access easements because there are no known existing access easements encumbering this property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Gilroy Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council: a) Based on its independent analysis, determine that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), which exempts residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified; and b) Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 20-05, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May 2024 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ _______________________________ Sharon Goei, Secretary Manny Bhandal, Chairperson Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 5 PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT(S). 1.APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for tentative map TM 20-05 is granted to subdivide an approximate 41.4+/- acre site into 40 compact single-family lots in the Canyon Creek neighborhood; six lots for the creation of 41 townhouse units in the Rocky Knoll neighborhood; and nine lots for the creation of 42 townhouse units in the Malvasia II neighborhood, for a total of 55 residential lots and 123 residential units; one public open space parcel for the construction of the Santa Teresa trail; one public trail easement for the Rocky Knoll Trail; 18 private open space parcels that will be maintained by the homeowners’ association; and associated public and private streets on Assessor Parcel No. 808-18-032 and 808-58-005, as shown on Project Plans dated as received by the Planning Division on July 30, 2021 prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar for the Glen Loma Corporation, dated July 2021, and consisting of 20 sheets. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of improvement plan submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval by the appropriate decision making body, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2.TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRATION: An approved tentative map or vesting tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the approval date and may be extended pursuant to the provisions of the Map Act, if the final map is not approved prior to expiration. 3.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to issuance of any Architectural and Site Review permit, Building Permit, Grading Permit, or Improvement Plan, whichever is first issued, Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this permit, as adopted by the decision-maker. 4.INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 6 City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process. 5.Failure to appeal this decision in a timely manner, or commencement of any activity related to the project, is understood to clarify Developer’s acceptance of all conditions and obligations imposed by this permit and waiving any challenge to the validity of the conditions and obligations stated therein 6.WATER LIMITATIONS: Developer shall be advised that the approval is subject to the drought emergencies provisions pursuant to the Gilroy City Code Chapter 27.98. MITIGATION MEASURES. The following Mitigation Measures are included as conditions of approval, pursuant to the adopted 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 7.Unless eliminated by the city council in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, all EIR mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the adopted 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 8.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 3) Project proponents shall specify in project plans the implementation of the following dust control measures during grading and construction activities for any proposed development. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust, subject to the review and approval by the City of Gilroy Engineering 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; and • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 7 The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites greater than four acres in area: • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The following measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emission reductions: • Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour; and • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. 9.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 5) Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no more than 30 days prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for development proposed in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat (i.e., riparian woodland and oak woodland), a tree survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nest(s) of protected birds are present in the trees. Areas within 200 feet of the construction zone that are not within the control of the applicant shall be visually assessed from the project site. This survey shall be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and/or breeding season of protected bird species potentially nesting in the tree (generally March 1 through August 1). If active nest(s) are found, clearing and construction within 200 feet of the tree, or as recommended by the qualified biologist, shall be halted until the nest(s) are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. If construction activities are not scheduled between March 1 and August 1, no further shrike or tree surveys shall be required. 10.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 6) Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no more than 30 days Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 8 prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for development proposed in or adjacent to potential roost habitat (i.e., riparian woodland and oak woodland), pre-construction surveys for bat roosts shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If bat roost sites are found, the biologist shall implement a program to remove/displace the bats prior to the removal of known roost sites. In addition, an alternate roost site shall be constructed in the vicinity of the known roost site. Specifications of the alternate roost shall be determined by a bat specialist. 11.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 8) Prior to approval of each tentative map or use permit, project plans for future development on the project site shall be designed to avoid unnecessary filling or other disturbance of natural drainage courses and associated oak/riparian woodland vegetation to the greatest extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. In the event that disturbance of site drainages and associated oak/riparian woodland vegetation cannot be avoided (i.e., Reservoir Canyon Creek Bridge construction, culverts, storm drain outfalls, etc.), authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game through Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Regional Water Quality Control Board through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act shall be obtained, if required, prior to issuance of building or grading permits for any activity that might encroach on the site’s drainages. Conditions imposed on these permits and/or authorizations may include but not be limited to the following: • Construction work shall be initiated and completed during the summer and fall months when the drainages are dry, or at least have a very low flow. Typically, no construction work shall be allowed between October 15th and April 15th. • A Habitat Restoration Plan shall be prepared to identify the exact amount and location of affected and replacement habitat, to specify on-site revegetation with locally-obtained native species within the buffer areas to mitigate habitat loss, and to provide specifications for installation and maintenance of the replacement habitat. Any loss of riparian or wetland vegetation resulting from construction activities shall be mitigated on-site at a minimum 3:1 replacement ratio. 12.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 9) Any loss of oak and/or riparian woodland habitat resulting from development shall require the project proponent to retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Restoration Plan to identify the exact amount and location of affected and replacement habitat, specify an appropriate plant palette, and provide specifications for installation and maintenance of the replacement habitat. Replacement vegetation shall consist of locally-obtained native plant species. Any loss of riparian woodland vegetation shall be mitigated on-site at a minimum of 3:1 replacement Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 9 ratio, unless otherwise determined by the Department of Fish and Game and the City of Gilroy. Any loss of oak woodland vegetation shall require preservation of on-site oak woodland at a ratio of 3:1 and replanting on-site at a ratio of 1:1, unless otherwise determined by the Department of Fish and Game and the City of Gilroy. The Habitat Restoration Plan shall be prepared prior to issuance of building or grading permits for any activity requiring removal of oak and/or riparian woodland habitat, subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division and California Department of Fish and Game. 13.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 10) Prior to commencement of construction activities associated with Reservoir Canyon Creek Bridge, the project proponent responsible for construction of the bridge shall arrange for a qualified biologist to monitor bridge construction activities to ensure there are no impacts to wetlands and associated oak/riparian woodland habitat. 14.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 13) Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, subject to the review of the Gilroy Planning Division, the project applicant shall install siltation fencing, hay bales, or other suitable erosion control measures along portions of natural and manmade drainage channels in which construction will occur and within 20 feet of construction and/or staging areas in order to prevent sediment from filling the creek. 15.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 14) Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project proponent of any future development on the project site shall submit a Landscape Plan, for review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division. Landscaping plans for areas adjacent to riparian habitat shall include appropriate guidelines to prevent contamination of drainages and their associated riparian habitat by pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers. Landscaping shall include appropriate native plants species and should not include plantings of non-native, invasive plant species. 16.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 16) A schematic lighting plan shall be submitted with each development proposal for review and approval by the Planning Division. Exterior lighting for any development proposed adjacent to open space areas shall be of low stature (i.e., 20 feet) and shall be of a full cutoff design or include opaque shields to reduce illumination of the surrounding landscape. Lighting shall be directed away from open space areas. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 10 17.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 17) Prior to approval of a tentative map for each phase of the proposed project containing or adjacent to preserved natural open space areas, a signage plan shall be prepared to outline the language, number and location of signs to dissuade people from straying off trails and to prohibit unleashed dogs in the open space areas, subject to approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division. 18.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 19) Prior to commencement of construction activities, the protected zone of any trees or groups of trees to be retained shall be fenced to prevent injury to the trees during construction. Soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping of materials shall not be allowed within the protected zone. The fencing shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete. 19.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 20) Project proponents shall submit a soils investigation prepared by a qualified soils engineer for future development on the project site. The recommendation of the soils investigation shall be incorporated into final building plans, subject to the review and approval by the Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of any building permits. 20.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 21) The project applicant shall design all structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code for seismic design. In addition, all recommendations in the geotechnical reports prepared for the project shall be implemented. Structural design is subject to the review and approval by the Gilroy BLES Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 21.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 24) The project applicant for any proposed development on the project site, shall, for each phase of the development, submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and detailed engineering designs to the Central Coast RWQCB. The associated permit shall require development and implementation of a SWPPP that uses storm water “Best Management Practices” to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from the site. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices that address source reduction and, if necessary, shall include practices that require treatment. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Gilroy Engineering Division for review and approval prior to approval of a building permit for each phase of the project. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 11 22.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 25) The project applicant shall submit plans for review by, and obtain an approved permit from, the Santa Clara Valley Water District for any work that requires a permit from the water district. 23.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 26) Future applicants in the Glen Loma Ranch specific plan area shall prepare a post- construction storm water management plan, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Engineering Division prior to the approval of final improvement plans, that shall include structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction of pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. 24.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 28) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for all areas within the Specific Plan area, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project plans to mitigate construction noise, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division: a. Construction shall be limited to weekdays between 7 AM and 7 PM and Saturdays and holidays between 9 AM and 7 PM, with no construction on Sundays; b. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; and c. Stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. 25.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 34) Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. 26.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 35) Add a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 12 permit in Phase II. 27.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 37) Add second eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 28.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 39) Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and southbound left-turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Note: This intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours with implementation of this improvement. However, under General Plan Buildout Conditions, the Tenth Street Bridge would be required to be constructed. With the Tenth Street Bridge, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour with NO improvements, e.g. signalization and lane additions. Therefore, the mitigation measure identified above would not be required under General Plan Buildout Conditions, assuming the Tenth Street Bridge were constructed. One option would be to only add the northbound left-turn lane as recommended in the previous scenario (Background Plus Project Phases I and II) and consider LOS E as an acceptable short term level of service for this intersection. Another option is to implement the mitigation measure above (signalize the intersection and add the left-turn lanes, which would improve operations to LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours), with the knowledge that the signal could be removed once the Tenth Street Bridge is constructed at General Plan Buildout Conditions. 29.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 41) If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 13 OR If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right turn lane was added, add a second westbound left turn lane and westbound through lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 30.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 43) Add second northbound and westbound left turn lanes at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 31.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 44) Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 32.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 50) Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed in all residences within the specific plan area over 3,000 square feet, including single-family and multi-family town homes or apartments, and residential clusters with more than 25 units that lack secondary access. Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed prior to occupancy. Prior to approval of future development projects within the specific plan area, the City Fire Marshal may require that all residences have residential fire sprinkler systems, regardless of conditions stated above, especially if streets are narrow, buildings are closely spaced, emergency response time is not met, there is inadequate fire flow, building are adjacent to natural areas, or other conditions exist that could hinder the ability of the City of Gilroy Fire Department to perform fire suppression acts in such case they would be needed. The sprinklers shall be designed and installed in accordance with City of Gilroy Fire Department policies. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 14 33.(corresponds to EIR Mitigation Measure 52) The Glen Loma Ranch Homeowner’s Association shall take full responsibility for management and maintenance of the preserved open space areas within the project site. Seasonal vegetation management should be scheduled to occur at the end of the rainy season and consistent with the annual weed abatement resolution. The HOA should implement any vegetation management in the Preserved Open Spaces and Fuel Transition Zones at the beginning of the weed abatement season. This language shall be included in the HOA conditions, covenants, and restrictions. The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN. 34.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: As part of any future project submittals (e.g., Final Map, Building Permit), developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all mitigation measures and conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the City Council. The following conditions shall be met prior to tract acceptance. 35.ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to tract acceptance, Developer shall complete all required offsite and onsite improvements related to the project, including structures, paving, and landscaping, unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development Director, or stated in these conditions. The following conditions shall be met prior to the approval of the FINAL MAP or PARCEL MAP, or other deadline as specified in the condition. 36.TENTATIVE MAP: The approved tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the approval date and may be extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and Gilroy City Code section 21.41 (i), if the final map is not approved prior to expiration. 37.HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCATION: Developer shall establish Homeowners’ Associations (HOA) for the Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods or annex these neighborhoods into the existing Glen Loma Ranch HOA. The HOAs shall be responsible for the maintenance and enforcement of parking, private streets, landscaping, recreation and other interior areas held in common by the HOA. Such responsibilities shall be provided within the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the development. The City shall review all CC&Rs prior to recordation. 38.COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS: Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the project property shall be consistent with Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 15 the terms of this permit and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or this permit, the City Code or this permit shall prevail. The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 39.CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site: a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays; b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; c. Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; d. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; e. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; f. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and g. Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.” 40.CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential construction- related impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site: Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 16 a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.” 41.DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the Developer will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; b. Contractor will stockpile soil during development activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; c. Contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate filed screening instrumentation; d. Contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; e. Contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and f. Contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 17 42.DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50’ of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. 43.DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event of an accidental discovery of archaeological resources during grading or construction activities, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site: “If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.” 44.DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Developer shall include the following language in all grading, site work, and construction plans: “If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 18 associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.” ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 45.GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, utility sheets shall show appropriate line types and labels to identify different type of utilities and pipe sizes. Clearly identify both public and private utilities. 46.GENERAL - Improvement plans (as second sheet in plan set) shall contain Approved Conditions of Approval. 47.GENERAL - Improvement plans shall include General Notes found in the City of Gilroy General Guidelines. A complete set of improvement plans shall consist of Civil site design, landscape site design, Electrical, Joint Trench. 48.GENERAL - Improvement plan cover sheet shall include a table summarizing all facilities (Streets, Utilities, Landscaping, etc.), showing the ownership of all facilities, and the maintenance responsibilities of all facilities. 49.GENERAL - The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and local agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. A copy of these permits will be provided prior to building permits for that phase/tract. 50.GENERAL – Improvement plans are required for both on-site and off-site improvements. 51.GENERAL - Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles removed along the property frontage 52.GENERAL - All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and if necessary, relocated as approved by the City Engineer. No permanent structure is permitted within City easements without the approval of the City of Gilroy. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 19 53.GENERAL - Prior to any work within public right of way or City easement, the developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City. 54.Intentionally Left Blank 55.GENERAL - All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details, and is subject to all laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. Street improvements and the design of all off-site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines, and all street sections shall be in accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master Plan for streets, as approved by the City of Gilroy’s Public Works Director/City Engineer. 56.GENERAL - Prior to issuance of any building permits, developer shall submit for City approval water, sewer and storm drain studies for the development. These studies shall provide supporting hydraulic calculation for pipe sizing per City standard design guideline. 57.GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, developers engineer shall submit a calculation for sanitary sewer and water generation per the City’s Master Plan design criteria. 58.FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of development impact fees will be required for each unit prior to permit issuance and shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy. 59.FEE - Prior to plan approval, developer shall submit a detailed project cost estimate by the project engineer, subject to City Engineer approval. Cost estimate shall be broken out into on-site and off-site improvements. 60.FEE - Prior to final map approval, Developer shall pay 100% of the plan check and processing fees and other related fees that the property is subject to, enter into a property improvement agreement, and provide payment and performance bonds each for 100% of the cost for improvements with the City that shall secure the construction of the improvements. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 20 61.GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerns. If all or part of the construction occurs during the rainy season, the developer shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Public Works Director for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion control devices and other techniques in accordance with Municipal Code § 27C to minimize erosion. Specific measures to control sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination shall be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall supplement the Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These documents shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board, with a copy provided to the Engineering Division before a grading permit will be issued. WDID# shall be added to the grading plans prior to plan approval. 62.GRADING & DRAINAGE - Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer shall review the final grading, pavement design and drainage plans to ensure that said designs are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant’s Geotechnical engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either by letter or by signing the plans. 63.GRADING & DRAINAGE - At first improvement plan submittal, the developer shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The SWMP shall analyze the existing and ultimate conditions and facilities, and the study shall include all off-site tributary areas. Study and the design shall be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition). Existing offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity shall not be altered by the development. 64.GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading and improvement plans shall identify the vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor. 65.GRADING & DRAINAGE - Improvement and grading plans shall show existing topo and features at least 50’ beyond the project boundary. Clearly show Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 21 existing topo, label contour elevations, drainage patterns, flow lines, slopes, and all other property encumbrances. 66.GRADING & DRAINAGE – Geotechnical Engineer to confirm infiltration rates by conducting Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing with appropriate safety factors of all stormwater detention and/or retention facilities. 67.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to Final Map approval, developer shall execute a property improvement agreement and post Payment and Performance bonds each for 100% of cost for improvement with the City that shall secure the construction of the public improvements. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement. 68.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - The developer shall repair or replace all existing damaged improvements not designated for removal and all new improvements that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 69.CONSTRUCTION - Recycled water shall be used for construction water, where available, as determined by the Public Works Director. Recycled water shall be billed at the municipal industrial rate based on the current Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Valley Water’s municipal industrial rate. 70.CONSTRUCTION - All construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and billed at the current hydrant meter rate. 71.CONSTRUCTION - The City shall be notified at least ten (10) working days prior to the start of any construction work and at that time the contractor shall provide a project schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list. 72.CONSTRUCTION - Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for general construction activity. No work shall be done on Sundays and City Holidays. The Public Works Director will apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school commute routes. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 22 73.CONSTRUCTION - All work shown on the improvement plans, if applicable, shall be inspected. Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Director. 74.CONSTRUCTION - If the project has excess fill or cut that will be off-hauled to a site or on-hauled from a site within the city limits of Gilroy, an additional permit is required. This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan. 75.CONSTRUCTION - It is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains. 76.CONSTRUCTION - At least one week prior to commencement of work, the Developer shall post at the site and mail to the Engineering Division and to owners of property within (300') three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the project site a notice that construction work will commence on or around the stated date. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. 77.CONSTRUCTION - Prior to final inspections, all pertinent conditions of approval and all improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Engineer. 78.TRANSPORTATION - Any work in the public right-of-way shall require a traffic control plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans. Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Traffic Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the public right of way. 79.UTILTIES - The Developer/Contractor shall make accessible any or all City utilities as directed by the Public Works Director. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 23 PROJECT SPECIFIC ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 80.FEE – The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. The latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City website. Payment of Impact Fees is required at the time of each building prior to Grading permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy. The following are approximate impact fees, estimated when the project was proposed to the Planning Commission. i. Street Tree Development = $4,548 ii. Storm Development = $40,046 iii. Sewer Development = $909,093 iv. Water Development = $233,454 v. Traffic Impact = $1,336,272 vi. Public Facilities = $2,410,677 Actual fees will be based on Final Design information and the Current Comprehensive Fee Schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy. 81.FEE - At first improvement plan submittal, Developer shall submit to Public Works a $25,000 (Twenty-Five Thousand) initial deposit for plan check and processing. This deposit will be credited/accounted for toward final plan check and inspection fee. 82.GENERAL - No building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is recorded. 83.GENERAL - The approved construction schedule shall be shared with Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) to avoid traffic impacts to surrounding school functions. An approved construction information handout(s) shall also be provided to GUSD to share with school parents. 84.GENERAL - A current Title Report dated within the last six months, shall be submitted with the first submittal improvement plans. An existing site plan shall be submitted showing all existing site conditions and title report easements. Include bearings and distances for all Right of Way and Easements on the plans. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 24 85.GENERAL - The Developer shall provide a “composite plan” showing Civil, Landscape, Electrical, and Joint Trench design information (as a separate sheet titled “Composite Plan”) to confirm that there are no conflicts. 86.Intentionally Left Blank 87.GENERAL - At first submittal, developer shall provide a Geotechnical report that includes pavement section recommendations for all public and private street pavement sections. 88.GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved project’s design level geotechnical report. All grading activities shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a licensed geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the City of Gilroy for each phase of construction, stating that all grading activities were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project’s geotechnical report. The developer shall add this condition to the general notes on the grading plan 89.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – All work in the public right of way, or for public use, shall require an encroachment permit issued by Public Works, and shall be contained in one set. Plans are to be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. 90.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Offsite improvement plans shall be completed per the Public Works Engineering Checklist found in the Public Works, Engineering, portion of the City’s website. Partial submittals shall not be accepted. Applicant shall make a pre-submittal appointment with the Public Work Land Development Section, to review that all submittal applications items are complete. 91.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to Final Map Approval, the developer shall obtain design approval and bond for all necessary improvements. All improvements must be built to the city Engineer’s satisfaction prior to issuance of the last certificate of occupancy 92.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - Trail, landscaping, and frontage improvements along Santa Teresa Blvd., Canyon Creek, and Luchessa Ave shall be constructed with the contiguous Final Map and Improvement Plans. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 25 93.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - The current layout may conflict with future Santa Teresa Blvd plan line widening. At first plan submittal, Santa Teresa Blvd. frontage improvements cannot conflict with future Santa Teresa Blvd. plan line widening improvements. At first plan submittal, show complete cross sections from the property line to existing Santa Teresa Blvd. including the proposed widened of Santa Teresa. 94.Intentionally Left Blank 95.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – At first plan submittal, provide all sight distance exhibits showing adequate sight distance. 96.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - The developer shall microsurface W. Luchessa from Santa Teresa Blvd prior to project acceptance. 97.CONSTRUCTION - All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the City, or a minimum of three times daily. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, or at least once a day. 98.Intentionally Left Blank 99.CONSTRUCTION - The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The subdivider shall require the soils engineer to daily submit all testing and sampling and reports to the City Engineer. 100.CONSTRUCTION – Prior to Final Map approval, the Developer/Applicant shall submit a proposed construction phasing and schedule for approval by the City Engineer. Schedule format shall be Microsoft Prospect, and shall identify the scheduled critical path for the installation of improvements. The schedule shall be updated weekly. 101.CONSTRUCTION - Grading operations between October 15 and April 15 will require a winterized grading and erosion control plan to be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. Grading activities will not be allowed unless the winterized grading permit is approved by Public Works. The plan shall include (at a minimum) the following items: Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 26 •Specify the work to be conducted during the winter months with estimated number of working days to complete activity and the type of equipment to be used. •Provide a general schedule of the proposed work activities with a written narrative/description of work that includes the procedures for completing said work. •Show how the entire site will be protected “Winterized” from sediment erosion and transport and show how all exposed soil will be managed. •Show temporary sediment basins to be used for collecting stormwater. Sediment basins shall be sized appropriately and calculations shall be provided as part of the plan submittal. •Provide details of the temporary sediment basin’s erosions control measures such as sediment berms, Hydroseeding, and bank stabilization. •On a single plan sheet, show the entire site at an appropriate scale sufficient to make grading information legible with the location of temporary sediment basins, overland flow arrows indicating flow to the temporary sediment basins, and indicate the discharge locations. 102.CONSTRUCTION PARKING - No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Public Works Director (§ 15.40.070). 103.TRANSPORTATION – At first plan submittal, developer shall submit on-site and off-site photometric plans. 104.TRANSPORTATION - At first plan submittal developer shall model all Solid Waste Vehicle circulation movements, as a separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the City Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn swept analysis software, all turning and street circulation movements. 105.TRANSPORTATION - At first plan submittal developer shall model all Emergency Vehicle circulation movements, as a separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the City Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn swept analysis software, all turning and street circulation movements. 106.TRANSPORTATION – Applicant shall obtain a letter from Recology confirming serviceability and site accessibility of solid waste pickup, Contact Lisa Patton, Operations Manager 408-846-4421. Include Recology letter with first building permit submittal. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 27 107.TRANSPORTATION - Developer shall design driveway grades to keep a standard design vehicle from dragging or “bottoming out” on the street or driveway and to keep water collected in the street from flowing onto the lots. The details of such design shall be provided at improvement plan phase and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineer. 108.UTILITIES – All new services to the development shall be "underground service" designed and installed in accordance with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, AT&T (phone) Company and local cable company regulations. Transformers and switch gear cabinets shall be placed underground unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Underground utility plans must be submitted to the City prior to installation. 109.UTILITIES - The following items will need to be completed prior to first building permit submittal: a. The Developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. Show preferred and alternative locations for all utility vaults and boxes if project has not obtained PG&E approval. A licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer shall sign the composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans. (All dry utilities shall be placed underground). b. The Developer shall negotiate right-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and other utilities subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division and the utility companies. c. Will Serve Letter” from each utility company for the subdivision shall be supplied to the City. 110.UTILITIES - A note shall be placed on the joint trench composite plans which states that the plan agrees with City Codes and Standards and that no underground utility conflict exists. The Joint consultant shall provide the City a separate “project utility composite plan” showing all Civil, Landscape, electrical, and joint trench information to confirm that there are no conflicts with joint trench plan utilities. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 28 111.UTILITIES – Storm and sewer lines in private streets shall be privately owned and maintained. This should be noted on the title sheet of the project improvement plan. 112.UTILITIES - Prior to any construction of the dry utilities in the field, the following will need to be supplied to the City: i. A professional engineer signed original electrical plan. ii. A letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan conforms to City codes and Standards, and to the approved improvement plans. 113.UTILITIES - Sanitary sewer laterals and/or water meters located in driveways shall have traffic rated boxes and lids. 114.UTILITIES - The Developer shall perform Fire Hydrant test to confirm water system will adequately serve the development and will modify any part of the systems that does not perform to the standards established by the City. Developer shall coordinate with Fire Department for the Fire Hydrant test. 115.UTILITIES - The project shall fully comply with the measures required by the City’s Water Supply Shortage Regulations Ordinance (Gilroy City Code, Chapter 27, Article VI), and subsequent amendments to meet the requirements imposed by the State of California’s Water Board. This ordinance established permanent voluntary water saving measures and temporary conservation standards. 116.Intentionally Left Blank 117.UTILITIES - Prior to First Plan Submittal, , developer shall coordinate with Valley Water and obtain written confirmation from Valley Water for the intent, schedule, and commitment for the construction of the 36” recycle water line and related facilities within the proposed W. Luchessa extension. The Final Map and PIA will not be approved until Valley Water successfully provides a reimbursement agreement, OR there is a mutual agreement between Valley Water and Developer that the reimbursement agreement can be finalized after Final Map approval and prior to any wet utility construction. 118.UTILTIES – All recycled water system improvements, including appurtenances, shall be located within a PSE. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 29 119.UTILITIES - The Developer/Applicant shall obtain a SCVWD permit for any new recycled water mains connected to the existing Gilroy Water Reclamation Facility system. 120.UTILTIES - All new mainline storm drain piping shall have a minimum diameter of 18 inches and the lateral connections shall have a minimum diameter of 15 inches. 121.UTILITIES - Developer shall provide separate irrigation meter to serve this development’s common area landscaping. 122.UTILITIES - Water lines and related facilities within the proposed subdivision will be publicly owned and maintained. 123.WATER QUALITY - Proposed development shall comply with state mandated regional permits for both pre-construction and post-construction stormwater quality requirements per chapter 27D of the Gilroy Municipal Code, and is subject to, but not limited to, the following: a. At first improvement plan submittal, project shall submit a design level Stormwater Control Plan Report (in 8 ½ x 11 report format), to include background, summary, and explanation of all aspects of stormwater management. Report shall also include exhibits, tables, calculations, and all technical information supporting facts, including but not limited to, exhibit of the proposed site conditions which clearly delineates impervious and pervious areas on site. Provide a separate hatch or shading for landscaping/pervious areas on- site including those areas that are not bioretention areas. This stormwater control plan report format does not replace or is not in lieu of any stormwater control plan sheet in improvement plans. b. The stormwater control plan shall include a signed Performance Requirement Certifications specified in the Stormwater Guidance Manual. c. At developer’s sole expense, the stormwater control plan shall be submitted for review by an independent third party accepted by the City for compliance. Result of the peer review shall be included with the submittal for City evaluation. d. Prior to plan approval, the Developer of the site shall enter into a formal written Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B. i. The City shall record this agreement against the property or properties involved and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by the Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 30 stormwater management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public Works Engineering. ii. This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of the proposed modification or maintenance activity. iii. This Agreement shall also provide that in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety, the city shall have the authority to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner. iv. All on-site stormwater management facilities shall be operated and maintained in good condition and promptly repaired/replaced by the property owner(s) or other legal entity approved by the City. v. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in accordance with City-approved plans. vi. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance schedule for the life of any stormwater management facility and shall describe the maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and who shall perform the maintenance. This maintenance schedule shall be included with the approved Stormwater Runoff Management Plan. e. Stormwater BMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall include inspections to be required for this project and shall adhere to the following: i. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all stormwater management facilities inspected for condition and function by a certified third party QSP or QSD. ii. Stormwater facility inspections shall be done at least twice per year, once in Fall by October 1st, in preparation for the wet season, and once in Winter by March 15th. Written records shall be kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following information: 1. Site address; 2. Date and time of inspection; 3. Name of the person conducting the inspection; 4. List of stormwater facilities inspected; 5. Condition of each stormwater facility inspected; 6. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and 7. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 31 f. Upon completion of each inspection, an inspection report shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering no later than October 1st for the Fall report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report. g. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the developer shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and provide evidence of filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board. 124.WATER QUALITY - The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop order. 125.WATER QUALITY - The developer shall secure a QSD or QSP to maintain all erosion control and BMP measures during construction. The developers QSD or QSP shall provide the City weekly inspection reports. 126.WATER QUALITY – Sequence of construction for all Post Construction Required facilities (PCR’s) / stormwater facilities (bioswales, detention/retention basins, drain rock, etc.) shall be done as a final phase of construction to prevent silting of facilities and reduce the intended use of the facilities. Prior to final inspection, all stormwater facilities will be tested by a certified QSP or QSD to meet the minimum design infiltration rate. A maximum of 9 percolation tests shall be completed. 127.STORMWATER – All soil and infiltration properties for all stormwater facilities shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Percolation tests at horizontal and vertical (at the depth of the stormwater facility) shall be conducted for each stormwater facility. A 50% safety factor shall be applied to the calculated percolation test and shall be used as the basis for design (the design percolation rate). The geotechnical report shall include a section designated for stormwater design, including percolation results and design parameters. 128.STORMWATER – This project may be subject to an audit by the Central Coast Regional Board. City may be required to provide the project stormwater design and storm water management plan for Regional Board review and comment. The project may need to provide the Regional Board any and all necessary Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 32 documents (including reports, technical data, plans, etc.) for the Regional Board approval. 129.LANDSCAPING - Landscaping plans shall not conflict with the stormwater management water treatment plan. 130.LANDSAPING – The proposed landscaping along the project public street frontages and Roundabouts are maintained by project HOA. Developer shall submit a separate exhibit showing all the HOA maintained landscape areas for Glen Loma Ranch that are within the public right-of-way. 131.MASTER PLANS - Confirm the project is in compliance with the City’s Utility Master Plans. Project utility calculations and reports shall identify conformance to the City's adopted Utility Master Plans. 132.MONUMENTS – All monuments shall be set per the recorded final map. A certificate letter by the Surveyor or Engineer will be provided to the City Engineer. 133.PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – At first improvement plan submittal, plans must show current topographic survey including current improvements along all adjacent public and private streets. 134.PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Until such time as all improvements required are fully completed and accepted by City, Developer will be responsible for the care maintenance of and any damage to such improvements. City shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or occurring to the work or Improvements required for this project prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or Improvements. All such risks shall be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by the Developer. 135.PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Certification of grades and compaction is required prior to Building Permit final. This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan 136.PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Prior to tract acceptance, developer shall submit for review and approval all of the items identified in the Public Works Department “Development Project Closeout” list. Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 33 137.FINAL MAP - All final maps shall designate all common lots as lettered lots. The Final map should be clear on the limits of Public vs. Private (HOA) designations. 138.FINAL MAP - Prior to final map approval, the developer shall establish a homeowner association. The homeowner association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping, walls, private streetlights, private utilities, private streets, and common areas, and shall have assessment power. HOA shall be responsible maintenance of the Storm Water Control treatment areas and the CC&R’s shall describe how the stormwater BMPs associated with privately owned improvements and landscaping shall be maintained by the association. 139.FINAL MAP –The Final Map shall be presented to the City Council for review and action. The City Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days after the Final Map is deemed technically correct, and Subdivision Improvement Plans with supporting documents, reports and agreements are approved by the City. Developer shall dedicate necessary right of way and public easements for the project development. 140.OTHER AGENCIES - Reservoir Canyon Creek runs though the site. Developer shall obtain any permitting necessary by local, state, or federal agencies related to any work within, near, or adjacent with Reservoir Canyon Creek. 141.OTHER AGENCIES - Developer shall obtain Santa Clara County approval and an encroachment permit for all work in the County Right of Way. Provide Public Works Engineering Department a copy of the Santa Clara County Encroachment. 142.Prior to Final Map Approval, the developer shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City for all related landscape and trails within the limits of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. This Agreement shall also include any landscape, road, and trail easements related Santa Teresa Blvd. A detailed map of all areas covered shall be approved by the City Engineer and the County of Santa Clara. PROJECT SPECIFIC FIRE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 34 143.Luchessa Avenue, between Miller Avenue and Vintner Street (including the creek crossing) shall be constructed with the first phase final map. This section of Luchessa Ave shall be completed by the first building occupancy for the first phase of this subdivision. 1 Cindy McCormick From:Greg Nauman Sent:Saturday, March 23, 2024 3:28 PM To:Cindy McCormick Cc:Tina Nauman Subject:EXTERNAL - TM 20-05 Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll project Hi Cindy, We are aware of the plans to develop the subject property. Just curious as to the projected start date. We live directly across Santa Teresa, so are interested in when this might begin. Thanks, Greg (and Tina) Nauman 6510 Eagle Ridge Ct CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 1 Cindy McCormick From:Theresa Zamborsky Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:24 PM To:Cindy McCormick Subject:EXTERNAL - Comments about Project TM 20-05 "Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, Malvasia II at Glen Loma Ranch Tentative Map" Hi Cindy McCormick, I'd like to comment on the proposed Project TM 20-05 "Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, Malvasia II at Glen Loma Ranch Tentative Map" that is scheduled to be brought before the Planning Commission at a public hearing on Thurs. April 4, 2024 or shortly thereafter. I live in one of the recently completed projects in Glen Loma Ranch. It's come to our attention that the temporary Santa Teresa Fire Station in Christmas Hill Park that was supposed to support these large Glen Loma Ranch neighborhoods in Gilroy on a temporary basis has been closed due to lack of staffing. And also that the Glen Loma Ranch Development Group builder has not yet built a new fire station that they were contractually obligated to build as part of this master plan community. I read about the letter sent to the builder from the Gilroy attorneys, but have seen no further updates or status about this. Given that the builders have not met their contractual responsibilities as part of this large master plan community, why would Gilroy grant any more approvals to build even more communities in this area until the builder has met their long-overdue obligation of building a new fire station to support this new highly- populated area of Gilroy. Such a large increase in homes and population requires increased infrastructure of fire and emergency services to support it!! Thank you, Theresa Zamborsky P.S. Your email address was shown incorrectly as cindy.mcmormick@cityofgilroy.org on the Notice of Public Hearing info sheet I received in the mail last week! CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 1 Cindy McCormick From:W Jeffrey Heid Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 8:03 AM To:Cindy McCormick Subject:EXTERNAL - Glen Loma Ranch Public Hearing Hi Cindy, Thank you for the Public Hearing Notice regarding the next phases of construction in Glen Loma Ranch. My hope is to be able to attend the hearing, but thought I would voice a couple of concerns via email as well. We purchased a home two years ago at 1465 Winzer Place and love our location. 1) The Malvasia II neighborhood will be at the end of our street. I understand that these are to be townhomes similar to those recently constructed at Miller and Santa Teresa. I have reviewed some of the initial plans online and have also referenced the proposed building pad grades. Along with just looking at the property as it is now, we are concerned that these new structures will "loom" above our street and homes, especially if they are to be three story homes. We believe this will adversely affect the appearance of our neighborhood and the value of our properties. Are these structures indeed proposed to be three stories high? If they are, having them located along W. Luchessa between neighborhoods of one and two story single family homes seems out of character. As you walk along the sidewalk on Merlot Drive adjacent to this property, the initial level of the building sites is around 10 feet above the sidewalk. Thus with the level where construction will start from, three stories is too much. Is there an opportunity for them to be two stories maximum, more in keeping with what is here now? In addition, will storey poles be placed so that our neighborhood has an opportunity to see just how high these buildings are proposed? 2) It is also our understanding that a new fire station is proposed for this neighborhood. With the next level of proposed construction in Glen Loma Ranch, is there a schedule for when it will be constructed? Thank you and regards, Jeff Heid -- W. Jeffrey Heid LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1465 Winzer Place Gilroy, Ca. 95020 www.wjeffreyheidlandscapearchitect.com CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 1 Cindy McCormick From:Ariana Fabian Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:33 PM To:Cindy McCormick FW: EXTERNAL - Proposed development build-out of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05) proposed_malvasia_dev_issue.png Subject: From: Dey Sib Sankar Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:16 PM To: Planning Division (Public) <planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org> Subject: EXTERNAL - Proposed development build-out of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05) Hello, This is about the concerns I have for the development of of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05). Please note that I have been living in Malvasia neighbourhood for last 8 months. I have few concerns on the planning commission proposal and it would be very great if you can address few of them. 1. The proposed development place is surrounded by many single family houses. And the proposal is to build high density townhouses making the area more denser with high rise townhomes with little open spaces for neighbors. This will limit the view of the mountain for all single family houses around the area. I am attaching a map screenshot with this email for reference. 2. The narrower road in the sides will not be able to handle more houses. During morning and afternoon school time, a lot of vehicles are seen to be piling up. 3. Lack of garden or community area around the proposed development makes it hard for the people living in the neighborhood. Please plan to build parks as well in this part of glen Loma neighborhood. 4. Lack of space for habitats and ecological imbalance: The proposed place sees a lot of deer during evenings and early mornings. Developing this area will harm animals. Can you reconsider building of townhouses and replace them with low density/low rise single-family houses? Can you also build parks for this part of the Glen Loma which has no open space as such? I will try to join the hearing on 04/04/2024. But in case I am unable to join due to my demanding work, please take this as an official request. Thanks, Sib Dey CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 1480 Winzer Pl, Gilroy, CA 95020 On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:42 PM Cindy McCormick <Cindy.McCormick@ci.gilroy.ca.us> wrote: Thank you all for your time today. Here is the information being presented to the Planning Commission on May 2nd and eventually the City Council. Cindy Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Phasing: The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed three phases of development. Many of the EIR mitigation measures are tied to the issuance of building permits within each phase. The EIR included a phasing exhibit (figure 10) which illustrates the geographic location of each phase. EIR Phase 1, located east of Tenth Street, would connect Luchessa Avenue between Greenfield Drive and Miller Avenue, and Tenth Street between Santa Teresa Boulevard and just north of Luchessa Avenue. EIR Phase 2 is located northwest of the preserved natural open space area and includes Club Drive. EIR Phase 3, located west of Tenth Street, includes Merlot Drive and what is now the connection of West Luchessa Avenue between Tenth Street and Santa Teresa Boulevard (at Ballybunion Drive). The EIR phasing exhibit (figure 10) illustrated the following neighborhoods within each phase. Phase 1 included Cabernet, Petite Sirah, Vista Bella, Mataro, Luchessa, and The Grove. Phase 2 included Home Ranch, McCutchin Creek, Palomino, and Olive Grove (owned and reserved by GUSD). Phase 3 included Wild Chestnut, Montonico, Nebbiolo, The Glen, Malvasia, Town Center (R4), Town Center (Sr. Housing), Canyon Creek, and Rocky Knoll. The “Cabernet” neighborhood, initially planned for 53 units, was developed with the Las Animas Elementary School, while the Malvasia and Palomino neighborhoods were split into separate tentative map applications (Malvasia I & II, Palomino I & II). The Nebbiolo neighborhood was also split into two architectural and site review applications. The unit counts within each EIR phase are herein noted, along with the page number from the EIR where the information can be found. Note that the unit counts add up to 1,690 units (3 units fewer than the Specific Plan mid-point forecast). Phase 1 included 405 detached and 59 attached homes (Page 2-111). Phase 2 included 167 single-family homes, 197 townhomes, 177 apartments, 81,500 square feet of retail and office space, and a 30,000 square-foot fire station (Page 2-112). Phase 3 included 221 single-family homes, 314 townhomes, a 150-unit senior housing complex, and 74,000 square feet of additional commercial space within the town center (Page 2-114). EIR Phases 1 and 2 comprise 1,005 units while EIR Phase 3 comprises 685 units, for a total of 1,690 units. The City has approved tentative maps for 1,083 units, with 996 of those units either built or issued building permits for construction. As of April 10, 2024, the City has issued building permits for a total of 996 units for the following neighborhoods:  EIR Phase 1: Vista Bella (146 units), Petite Sirah (77 units), Mataro (51 units), Luchessa (49 units), and The Grove (64 units) for a total of 387 units.  EIR Phase 2: Home Ranch (52 units), Palomino (2 units) and McCutchin Creek (2 units) for a total of 56 units.  EIR Phase 3: Wild Chestnut (43 units), Montonico (84 units), Town Center BMR Apartments (158 units), Town Center Townhomes (124[1] units), The Glen (23 units), Malvasia (46 units), and Nebbiolo (75 units) for a total of 553 units. As provided above, the City has issued building permits for 996 units. The City anticipates issuing building permits for another 86 units within the approved tentative maps for Nebbiolo (27 units), Palomino (35 units) and McCutchin Creek (24 units). This would be bring the total count to 1,082 units, noting that one fewer unit was built in the Town Center Townhome development than permitted by the tentative map. The proposed tentative map (TM 20-05) for the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods would add 123 units towards Phase 3 build out of the Specific Plan, for a total of 1,205 units. The 2005 Glen Loma Specific Plan EIR included an analysis for 1,690 units; therefore, the remaining units that could be built pursuant to the EIR is 485 units. This includes an anticipated 192 units in the Olive Grove neighborhood (Phase 1), a property that is owned by, and being held in reserve by, the Gilroy Unified School District. Specific Plan build out also includes 6.8 acres of land set aside for commercial uses and 1.5 acres of land for the fire station. The applicant has indicated they intend to reduce the overall development of Glen Loma, including elimination of the commercial uses; however no formal documentation of this reduced development has been submitted. Therefore, the City is processing the proposed Tentative Map 20-05 in the same manner as previous tentative maps. [1] Tentative Map 17-01 included approval for 125 units; however only 124 townhome units were built. 1 Cindy McCormick From:Augie Dent <augie.dent@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2024 4:45 PM To:Cindy McCormick Cc:Jimmy Forbis; Sharon Goei; Andy Faber; John Filice; tfilice@glenloma.com; Arminta Jensen; Jack Kent Subject:EXTERNAL - Re: Glen Loma Tentative Map next steps Attachments:Response to City of Gilroy 4.18.24 email.pdf; Sharon Goei 5.26.23.pdf; GLR CityofGilroyPeerReview.pdf; Melissa Durkin 12.14.23.pdf; draft EIR addendum #2.pdf; Melissa Durkin email correspondence.pdf Hi Cindy Please find GLC's memo and supporting docs in response to your 4/18/24 email attached below. Thanks Augie On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:42 PM Cindy McCormick <Cindy.McCormick@ci.gilroy.ca.us> wrote: Thank you all for your time today. Here is the information being presented to the Planning Commission on May 2nd and eventually the City Council. Cindy Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Phasing: The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed three phases of development. Many of the EIR mitigation measures are tied to the issuance of building permits within each phase. The EIR included a phasing exhibit (figure 10) which illustrates the geographic location of each phase. EIR Phase 1, located east of Tenth Street, would connect Luchessa Avenue between Greenfield Drive and Miller Avenue, and Tenth Street between Santa Teresa Boulevard and just north of Luchessa Avenue. EIR Phase 2 is located northwest of the preserved natural open space area and includes Club Drive. EIR Phase 3, located west of Tenth Street, includes Merlot Drive and what is now the connection of West Luchessa Avenue between Tenth Street and Santa Teresa Boulevard (at Ballybunion Drive). The EIR phasing exhibit (figure 10) illustrated the following neighborhoods within each phase. Phase 1 included Cabernet, Petite Sirah, Vista Bella, Mataro, Luchessa, and The Grove. Phase 2 included Home Ranch, McCutchin Creek, Palomino, and Olive Grove (owned and reserved by GUSD). Phase 3 included Wild Chestnut, Montonico, Nebbiolo, The Glen, CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 Malvasia, Town Center (R4), Town Center (Sr. Housing), Canyon Creek, and Rocky Knoll. The “Cabernet” neighborhood, initially planned for 53 units, was developed with the Las Animas Elementary School, while the Malvasia and Palomino neighborhoods were split into separate tentative map applications (Malvasia I & II, Palomino I & II). The Nebbiolo neighborhood was also split into two architectural and site review applications. The unit counts within each EIR phase are herein noted, along with the page number from the EIR where the information can be found. Note that the unit counts add up to 1,690 units (3 units fewer than the Specific Plan mid-point forecast). Phase 1 included 405 detached and 59 attached homes (Page 2-111). Phase 2 included 167 single-family homes, 197 townhomes, 177 apartments, 81,500 square feet of retail and office space, and a 30,000 square-foot fire station (Page 2- 112). Phase 3 included 221 single-family homes, 314 townhomes, a 150-unit senior housing complex, and 74,000 square feet of additional commercial space within the town center (Page 2-114). EIR Phases 1 and 2 comprise 1,005 units while EIR Phase 3 comprises 685 units, for a total of 1,690 units. The City has approved tentative maps for 1,083 units, with 996 of those units either built or issued building permits for construction. As of April 10, 2024, the City has issued building permits for a total of 996 units for the following neighborhoods:  EIR Phase 1: Vista Bella (146 units), Petite Sirah (77 units), Mataro (51 units), Luchessa (49 units), and The Grove (64 units) for a total of 387 units.  EIR Phase 2: Home Ranch (52 units), Palomino (2 units) and McCutchin Creek (2 units) for a total of 56 units.  EIR Phase 3: Wild Chestnut (43 units), Montonico (84 units), Town Center BMR Apartments (158 units), Town Center Townhomes (124[1] units), The Glen (23 units), Malvasia (46 units), and Nebbiolo (75 units) for a total of 553 units. As provided above, the City has issued building permits for 996 units. The City anticipates issuing building permits for another 86 units within the approved tentative maps for Nebbiolo (27 units), Palomino (35 units) and McCutchin Creek (24 units). This would be bring the total count to 1,082 units, noting that one fewer unit was built in the Town Center Townhome development than permitted by the tentative map. The proposed tentative map (TM 20-05) for the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods would add 123 units towards Phase 3 build out of the Specific Plan, for a total of 1,205 units. The 2005 Glen Loma Specific Plan EIR included an analysis for 1,690 units; therefore, the remaining units that could be built pursuant to the EIR is 485 units. This includes an anticipated 192 units in the Olive Grove neighborhood (Phase 1), a property that is owned by, and being held in reserve by, the Gilroy Unified School District. Specific Plan build out also includes 6.8 acres of land set aside for commercial uses and 1.5 acres of land for the fire station. The applicant has indicated they intend to reduce the overall development of Glen Loma, including elimination of the commercial uses; however no formal documentation of this reduced development has been submitted. Therefore, the City is processing the proposed Tentative Map 20-05 in the same manner as previous tentative maps. [1] Tentative Map 17-01 included approval for 125 units; however only 124 townhome units were built. 3 [1] Tentative Map 17-01 included approval for 125 units; however only 124 townhome units were built. April 22, 2024 To: Cindy McCormick – City of Gilroy From: Augie Dent – Glen Loma Corporation Re: Glen Loma Ranch Dear Cindy I am writing with Glen Loma Corp’s response to your email of 4/18/24 advising us of additional information you intend to present to the Planning Commission in connection with TM 20-05. Please include this memo and attachments as part of the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Your assertion that the original Glen Loma Ranch EIR identifies 1005 permits as the trigger point to require Phase 3 traffic improvements is incorrect, misleading and its eleventh hour timing is indicative of the City of Gilroy’s ongoing pattern of obstruction with respect to Glen Loma Ranch. Project mitigations are a function of project impacts from all land uses; not just the residential unit count. Your email neglects to mention that 81,500 square feet of commercial space was included in the land uses analyzed for Phases 1 & 2 in the original 2005 EIR. Accounting for the fact that the commercial space assumed in the original traffic analysis has not been constructed, the allowable number of Phase 1 + Phase 2 residential units exceeds 1450. As the lead staff person on this item, you must be well aware, that the City is in the midst of processing GLR EIR Addendum #2 which clearly demonstrates that, even at 1467 residential units Glen Loma Ranch will not exceed Phase 1 + Phase 2 traffic impacts and there is no nexus to justify the imposition of Phase 3 traffic mitigations on TM 20-05. It is hard to imagine how, in good faith, this topic could be introduced without a discussion of Addendum #2. Addendum #2 Starting in 2018, at the direction of City Staff and funded by Glen Loma Corporation, the City’s traffic engineer for the original 2005 project EIR (Keith Higgins) prepared numerous studies evaluating traffic impacts in light of the fact that Glen Loma Ranch would build-out at lower than the maximum intensity allowed under the Specific Plan. This protracted process culminated in Higgins’ supplemental analysis letters of May and June 2022. These letters concluded that the project could accommodate a total of 1467 residential units plus 12,000 square feet of commercial uses without generating impacts that would trigger traffic improvements identified for Phase 3 in the original EIR. About a year later, in May 2023 the City (see attached Sharon Goei letter dated May 26, 2023) informed GLC that an Addendum would be required to formally document Higgins’ findings, and suggested continuing hearings on TM 20-05 to allow time for the Addendum to be completed. Around this same time, in support of the proposed Addendum, the City engaged the firm of Fehr & Peers to conduct a peer review of Higgins’ analysis. Fehr & Peers report was delivered in December 2023 (copy attached including Higgins’ letters). Each and every one of Higgins’ conclusions was validated. With Higgins’ reports, and Fehr & Peers affirmation of Higgins in hand; the City required GLC to advance funds necessary for EMC to prepare Addendum #2 (see attached Melissa Durkin letter dated December 14, 2023). GLC made the requested payment to the City and the draft Addendum was completed in February 2024 (Draft Addendum attached). This is where the addendum process has inexplicably stopped. The meaning of Sharon Goei’s 5/26/23 letter and subsequent extensive email communication with Melissa Durkin (see attached Melissa Durkin email correspondence) is unmistakable. Addendum #2 was always clearly intended to accompany TM 20-05. Now that the Addendum is finally ready for approval, City staff has arbitrarily refused to complete the process. Hearing Continuance I understand that, during their 4/4/24 meeting, Planning Commissioners expressed concern over the number of times Tentative Map 20-05 has been continued. GLC shares these concerns and would agree that the project has been burdened with inordinate delays. A review of the Goei/Durkin letters and emails referenced above should make clear to all that these continuances were undertaken at the urging of City Staff so that Addendum #2 could be completed and heard along with the TM. GLC still agrees that this is the correct approach and formally demands that the City immediately proceed to approve Addendum #2 in connection with TM 20-05. We request continuance to the June 2024 Planning Commission so that this can be accomplished. DRAFT A DDENDUM #2 TO THE CERTIFIED F INAL EIR GLEN LOMA R ANCH S PECIFIC PLAN State Clearinghouse Number 2003042018 City of Gilroy February 1, 2024 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Proposed Changes to Specific Plan Buildout Assumptions ................................................ 2 3.0 Proposed Elimination of Mitigation Measure ....................................................................... 2 4.0 Analysis Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 5 6.0 Proposed CEQA Findings ....................................................................................................... 6 7.0 Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Appendices Appendix A Map of Intersections and Streets with Remaining Mitigation Measures Appendix B Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout (Keith Higgins May 26, 2022) Appendix C Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB) (Keith Higgins June 7, 2022) Apendix D Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout Traffic Study (Fehr & Peers January 30, 2024) Tables Table 1 Proposed Changes to Specific Plan Buildout Assumptions .................................... 2Proposed Changes to Specific Plan Buildout Assumptions .................................... 2Proposed Changes to Specific Plan Buildout Assumptions .................................... 2 Apendix D Peer Review of the 2022 Glen LoApendix D Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Lo Study (Fehr & Peers January 30, 2024) Study (Fehr & Peers January 30, 2024) Appendix C Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR Appendix C Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB) (Keith Higgins June 7, 2022) with Current Projected Buildout (CPB) (Keith Higgins June 7, 2022) Apendix D Peer Review of the 2022 Glen LoApendix D Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Lo Appendix C Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR Appendix C Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR eets with Remaining Mitigation Measures eets with Remaining Mitigation Measures Appendix B Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout (Keith Higgins May 26, 2022) Appendix B Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout (Keith Higgins May 26, 2022) eets with Remaining Mitigation Measures eets with Remaining Mitigation Measures Sources .......................................................................................................................Sources ....................................................................................................................... Proposed CEQA Findings ....................................................................................................... Proposed CEQA Findings ....................................................................................................... Sources .......................................................................................................................Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 7 1 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 1.0 Project Background Specific Plan and Specific Plan EIR The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area is located in Gilroy, northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard and southwest of Uvas Creek. On November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy certified the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR (hereinafter “Specific Plan EIR”) and adopted the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (hereinafter “Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan EIR, along with the resolutions and findings approving the project and adopting the mitigation monitoring program, are incorporated herein by reference. When is an Addendum Required? CEQA Guidelines section 15164 gives direction to lead agencies regarding addendum to an EIR. It states: a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. EIR Addendum #1 The first addendum to the certified EIR addressed changes to the implementation timing of Mitigation Measure 31, and was adopted on (ADD DATE HERE). Mitigation Measure 31 required the applicant to design and construct a two-lane roundabout at Santa Teresa Boulevard and Miller Avenue. This mitigation measure has been implemented. EIR Addendum #1 EIR Addendum #1 A brief explanation of the decision not to A brief explanation of the decision not to 15162 should be included in an addendum to15162 should be included in an addendum to project, or elsewhere in the record. The exproject, or elsewhere in the record. The ex The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public An addendum need not be circulated for public the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none changes or additions are necessary or none calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified ad agencies regarding addendum to an EIR. It ad agencies regarding addendum to an EIR. It ad agencies regarding addendum to an EIR. It ad agencies regarding addendum to an EIR. It and findings approving the project and adopting and findings approving the project and adopting 2 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Addendum to the Certified Final EIR, along with the resolutions and findings approving the changes to Mitigation Measure 31, are incorporated herein by reference. 2.0 Proposed Changes to Specific Plan Buildout Assumptions The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of residential units and commercial square footage allowed in the Specific Plan. Table 1, Specific Plan Changes, presents the number of residential units and commercial square footage allowed in the adopted Specific Plan and evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR, the currently proposed number of residential units and commercial square footage, and the difference. Table 1 Proposed Changes to Specific Plan Buildout Assumptions Scenario Residential Units Commercial Square Footage Adopted Specific Plan Buildout 1,690 155,500 (7.9 acres) Proposed Buildout 1,467 12,000 (1.0 acre) Difference <223> <143,500> <6.8 acres> SOURCE: Keith Higgins 2022 NOTE: 3.0 Proposed Elimination of Mitigation Measure Based upon the reduction of proposed Specific Plan buildout assumptions, the applicant is requesting that the City of Gilroy remove all outstanding phase III mitigation measures. The locations of these mitigation measures are included in Appendix A, Intersections and Streets with Remaining Mitigation Measures. The measures are presented below: MM-34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Note: This mitigation measure has been partially-completed. The intersection has been signalized. The applicant proposes to eliminate adding the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. Remaining Mitigation MeasuresRemaining Mitigation Measures MM-34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/FitMM-34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fit and westbound left turn lanes. and westbound left turn lanes. Based upon the reduction of proposed Specific Based upon the reduction of proposed Specific requesting that the City of Gilroy remove arequesting that the City of Gilroy remove a locations of these mitigation measures are included in locations of these mitigation measures are included in 3.0 Proposed Elimination of Mitigation Measure 3.0 Proposed Elimination of Mitigation Measure Based upon the reduction of proposed Specific Based upon the reduction of proposed Specific Commercial Square Footage dential units and commercial square footage, and dential units and commercial square footage, and , presents the number of residential units and commercial square footage allowed in the adopted Specific Plan and evaluated in the Specific and commercial square footage allowed in the adopted Specific Plan and evaluated in the Specific dential units and commercial square footage, and dential units and commercial square footage, and 3 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 MM-35. Add a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-36. Prepare a traffic management plan of the Miller Avenue street section southwest of the intersection with Uvas Park Drive. The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City staff and constructed by the project, prior to issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-37. Add second eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and southbound left-turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Note: This intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours with implementation of this improvement. However, under General Plan Buildout Conditions, the Tenth Street Bridge would be required to be constructed. With the Tenth Street Bridge, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour with NO improvements, e.g. signalization and lane additions. Therefore, the mitigation measure identified above would not be required under General Plan Buildout Conditions, assuming the Tenth Street Bridge were constructed. Note: This intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours Note: This intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours southbound left-turn lanes. southbound left-turn lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller MM-39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller southbound left-turn lanes. southbound left-turn lanes. Party responsible for implemParty responsible for implementation: Project Proponent entation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-37. Add second eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to the Santa Teresa MM-37. Add second eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to the Santa Teresa The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall staff and constructed by the project, prior staff and constructed by the project, prior The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall 4 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 One option would be to only add the northbound left-turn lane as recommended in the previous scenario (Background Plus Project Phases I and II) and consider LOS E as an acceptable short-term level of service for this intersection. Another option is to implement the mitigation measure above (signalize the intersection and add the left-turn lanes, which would improve operations to LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours), with the knowledge that the signal could be removed once the Tenth Street Bridge is constructed at General Plan Buildout Conditions. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-41. If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. OR If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right turn lane was added, add a second westbound left turn lane and westbound through lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-43. Add second northbound and westbound left turn lanes at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-44. Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. MM-43. Add second northbound and westbound leftMM-43. Add second northbound and westbound left Avenue intersection. Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division MM-43. Add second northbound and westbound leftMM-43. Add second northbound and westbound left The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. entation: Project Proponent entation: Project Proponent lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right turn lane was added, add a second westbound left turn lane and westbound through right turn lane was added, add a second westbound left turn lane and westbound through If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound Bridge to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak Bridge to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak section was converted to a one lane modern section was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue 5 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 4.0 Analysis Summary Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer, prepared two reports for the applicant to evaluate the necessity of the above-referenced mitigation measures based upon the reduced build-out scenario of the Specific Plan. They are the Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout dated May 26, 2022, included as Appendix B, and Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB) dated June 7, 2022, included as Appendix C. Fehr & Peers, under contract to the City of Gilroy, conducted a peer review of the Higgins reports to ensure they were adequate and could be used as evidence that the mitigation measures are no longer needed, and that removal of the measures could be accomplished with preparation of an addendum to the certified EIR. The Fehr & Peers peer review, Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout Traffic Study, dated January 30, 2024 is included as Appendix D. The June 7, 2022 Keith Higgins report concluded that, with the proposed reduction of the Specific Plan buildout, all of the mitigation measures requested to be deleted could be with one exception: Mitigation Measure #35 requiring a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection. Fehr & Peers conducted a thorough peer review of the Keith Higgins report, and agree with the conclusions of the report. 5.0 Conclusions The following findings and conclusions are presented: 1. Eliminating Mitigation Measure 36, which requires preparation of a traffic management plan of the Miller Avenue section southwest of the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection within Christmas Hill Park, was not evaluated in the 2022 Higgins report. However, based upon further research conducted by Fehr & Peers, it was determined that this mitigation measure is no longer necessary. 2. The analysis and peer review concluded that the following mitigation measure is still required even with reduced Specific Plan buildout: Mitigation Measure 35, which requires adding a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection. 3. The analysis and peer review concluded that the following mitigation measures requested for removal could be eliminated (see the list in Section 3 above for the text of each measure): The following findings and conclusions are presented: The following findings and conclusions are presented: Eliminating Mitigation Measure 36, which requires preparation of a traffic management plan Eliminating Mitigation Measure 36, which requires preparation of a traffic management plan of the Miller Avenue section southwest of thof the Miller Avenue section southwest of th 5.0 Conclusions 5.0 Conclusions The following findings and conclusions are presented: The following findings and conclusions are presented: Fehr & Peers conducted a thorough peer review ofFehr & Peers conducted a thorough peer review of Mitigation Measure #35 requiring a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Mitigation Measure #35 requiring a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller sted to be deleted could be with one exception: sted to be deleted could be with one exception: Mitigation Measure #35 requiring a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Mitigation Measure #35 requiring a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller dated January 30, 2024 is included as dated January 30, 2024 is included as that, with the proposed reduction of the Specific that, with the proposed reduction of the Specific sted to be deleted could be with one exception: sted to be deleted could be with one exception: Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma dated January 30, 2024 is included as dated January 30, 2024 is included as evidence that the mitigation measures are no evidence that the mitigation measures are no could be accomplished with preparation of an could be accomplished with preparation of an Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma , conducted a peer review of the Higgins reports , conducted a peer review of the Higgins reports evidence that the mitigation measures are no evidence that the mitigation measures are no e 2005 EIR with Current e 2005 EIR with Current 6 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 a. Mitigation Measure 34; b. Mitigation Measure 36; c. Mitigation Measure 37; d. Mitigation Measure 39; e. Mitigation Measure 41; f. Mitigation Measure 43; and g. Mitigation Measure 44. 4. Additional CEQA compliance would be required if development is proposed that exceeds the Current Projected Buildout (CPB) as presented in the table in Attachment 1, Project Trip Generation Comparison, of the May 26, 2022 Keith Higgins report included as Appendix B of this Addendum #2. 6.0 Proposed CEQA Findings The following CEQA findings are recommended: 1. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. These are: a. Elimination of Mitigation Measures 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44 would not result in the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects and will not require major revisions to the certified EIR; b. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; c. There is no new information that shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the which the project is undertaken that will rewhich the project is undertaken that will re due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will rewhich the project is undertaken that will re Elimination of Mitigation Measures 34, 3Elimination of Mitigation Measures 34, 3 the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects the severity of previously identified effects None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. These are: subsequent EIR have occurred. These are: Elimination of Mitigation Measures 34, 3Elimination of Mitigation Measures 34, 3 None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a if development is proposed that exceeds in the table in Attachment 1, Project Trip in the table in Attachment 1, Project Trip ith Higgins report included as Appendix B ith Higgins report included as Appendix B if development is proposed that exceeds if development is proposed that exceeds 7 EMC Planning Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 February 1, 2024 project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 2. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (c), this addendum was not circulated for public review. 3. The City Council considered Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and Addendum #1, prior to making a decision on the request to eliminate the mitigation measures. 4. The City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the final certified EIR is appropriate, and that preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary based upon the substantial evidence provided in Addendum #2. 7.0 Sources Fehr & Peers. Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout Traffic Study. January 30, 2024. Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout. May 26, 2022. Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB). June 7, 2022. Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB).EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB). Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected BuildoutGlen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of InGlen Loma Ranch – Comparison of In Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma RancPeer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buh Current Projected BuPeer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranc The City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the final certified EIR is The City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the final certified EIR is appropriate, and that preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary based upon the appropriate, and that preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary based upon the The City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the final certified EIR is The City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the final certified EIR is The City Council considered Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and The City Council considered Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and Addendum #1, prior to making a decision on the request to eliminate the mitigation Addendum #1, prior to making a decision on the request to eliminate the mitigation The City Council considered Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and The City Council considered Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and Map of Intersections and Streets with Remaining Mitigation Measures A APPENDIX A INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WITH REMAINING MITIGATION MEASURES GLEN LOMA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Uvas Park at Miller Mitigations #35, #36, & #39 Princevalle at 10th Street Mitigation #40 Luchessa Bridge Mitigation #41 Monterey Road at Luchessa Mitigation #43 Santa Teresa at First Street Mitigations #37 & #44 INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WITH REMAINING MITIGATION MEASURES GLEN LOMA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Santa Teresa at Fitzgerald Mitigation #34 Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout B APPENDIX C ommunity D evelopment Department 7351 Ro§anna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429•.IIVIN.Cut December 14, 2023 Tim Filice Glen Loma Group 7888 Wren Avenue D 143 Gilroy, CA 95020 Sharon Goei DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Glen Loma Ranch Addendum EIR Dear Tim, The City's environmental consultant, EMC Planning Group, lnc, has been retained to prepare the required environmental anailysis for your project, referenced above. A copy of the proposal and enclosed for your reference. The time frame for completing this work will be determined after the consultant receives the Notice to Proceed for this work. Fees are established by the City Council for full cost recovery to minimize any burden to taxpayers and are adopted by the current Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Total funds needed to prepare the addendum EIR are $14,883.37, broken down as follows: Environmental consultant cost $11,448.75 Staff Review Fee $1,717.31 Contract Administration Fee (15%) $1,717.31 At this time, please remit $14,883.37 payable to the City of Gilroy, to commence the environmental review for your project. This should be received with ninety (90) days for the project file will be deemed abandoned . Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at (408) 846-0252 or melissa.duikin@ri£}£gfgjJ±Q]£Qj:£i. After December 21, 2023, please contact Cindy Mccormick at 408-846-0253 or cindy. mccorrriick@cityofgilroy.org. Respectfully, JJthj- t©wfro Melissa Durkin planner 11 60 S. Market Street | Suite 700 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: December 13, 2023 To: Melissa Durkin, City of Gilroy cc: Teri Wissler Adam, EMC Planning Group From: Jing Yang, Elynor Zhou, and Franziska Church, Fehr & Peers Subject: Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout Traffic Study SJ23-2256 This memorandum summarizes Fehr & Peers’ peer review comments on the following supplemental reports prepared for the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan project: • Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022 • Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022 After the original Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared in 2005 (“2005 Traffic Study”), the project was developed at lower density. The purpose of the peer review is to help inform which mitigation measures from the 2005 Traffic Study would still be required with the reduced development assumptions. Project Understanding Background Glen Loma Ranch (GLR) is a 359.6-acre property located in the City of Gilroy, California. The site is bordered by Uvas Creek to the north, Santa Terea Boulevard to the west and south, and existing residential development to the east. The proposed development for GLR consists primarily of residential use with other land uses including open space, commercial, office, etc. The 2005 Traffic Study by Higgins Associates included 1,690 dwelling units and 155,500 square feet of non- residential uses. It evaluated 23 intersections within the City of Gilroy and proposed intersection improvements to address deficiencies. The development was evaluated in three phases (Phase 1 to 3). Melissa Durkin December 13, 2023 Page 2 of 7 Since the 2005 Traffic Study, the project has built out at lower land use intensity than anticipated, and the Current Projected Buildout (CPB) includes 1,275 residential units, potentially 192 units at Olive Grove Apartments, a fire station, and 12,000 sf of non-residential uses (including office, restaurant, and commercial). In 2022, Keith Higgins prepared a traffic study for the CPB (Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout and Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB)). The 2022 CPB traffic study evaluated trip generation and assignment for the lower land use intensity and compared it with results for the Background Phase 1+2 and Buildout (Phase 1 to 3) scenarios from the 2005 Traffic Study. The 2022 CPB traffic study concluded that since the CPB generates substantially less traffic than anticipated for Phase 1+2 in the 2005 Traffic Study, the 2005 Background phase 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the lower land use intensity of the CPB and none of the mitigation measures identified for Phase 3 are required. Scope of Review The purpose of this peer review is to confirm whether the mitigation measures for Phase 3 are still required with the reduced project descriptions of CPB. The peer review focuses on the 2022 CPB traffic study documented in the reports Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout and Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB). The memos are enclosed as Attachment A and Attachment B. The approved 2005 Traffic Study and the supplemental studies from 2019 to 2021 were used as references in this review. The peer review will cover the following intersections (numbering based on the 2005 Traffic Study) that have remaining mitigation measures. The intersections are also included in the 2022 CPB traffic study. • #1 Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue • #3 Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street • #9 Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue • #17 Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue • #19 Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue The scope of review includes: • Trip generation assumptions • Trip distribution and assignment • Level of service calculations • Comparison of study results with the previously prepared document Melissa Durkin December 13, 2023 Page 3 of 7 • Identification of project impacts in relation to the City’s significance criteria and the reduced project • Necessity of the transportation mitigation measures in the current context Peer Review Findings The following summarizes the key findings of our review of the 2022 CPB traffic study on reduced project descriptions in CPB. Trip Generation Most of the trip generation estimates are consistent with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition were applied to CPB land uses. Table 1 includes the peer review comments for each of the land uses in CPB listed in Attachment 1 of Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout letter. In the CPB analysis, trip generation for residential land uses utilized the fitted curve equations whereas the trip generation for non-residential land uses used the average rates. Attachment C shows the comparison of trip generation for two non-residential land uses, general office and commercial, when fitted curve equations are used instead of average rates. Table 1: Trip Generation Peer Review CPB Land Use1 Size1 ITE Trip Generation Code1 Peer Review Comments Single Family Homes 840 units 210 Single-Family Detached Housing (per unit) Agree with trip generation estimate. Townhomes 277 units 220 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (per unit) Agree with trip generation estimate. Apartments 80 units 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (per unit) Agree with trip generation estimate. Senior Adult Housing - Attached 78 units 252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached (per unit) Agree with trip generation estimate. Fire Station 7,350 sq. ft. 575 Fire and Rescue Station (per 1,000 sq. ft.) ITE only provides PM peak hour rates and source for AM peak hour rates was not provided in the 2022 CPB traffic study. Based on engineering judgement, the number of AM peak hour trips included in the study is reasonable and no further refinement is needed. General Office 4,000 sq. ft. 710 General Office (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Fitted curve will result in higher trip generation estimates than average rates; but difference is negligible and would not change the conclusions of the results. See Attachment C. Melissa Durkin December 13, 2023 Page 4 of 7 CPB Land Use1 Size1 ITE Trip Generation Code1 Peer Review Comments Quality Restaurant 4,000 sq. ft. 931 Quality Restaurant (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Agree with trip generation estimate. Commercial 4,000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Fitted curve will result in higher trip generation estimates than average rates; however, average rates provide more reasonable estimates and no further refinements are needed. See Attachment C. Olive Grove Apartments 192 units 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (per unit) Agree with trip generation estimate. Notes: 1. From Attachment 1 of Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022. Source: Keith Higgins, 2022; Fehr & Peers, 2023. The 2022 CPB traffic study assumes no internal trip reduction between residential and non- residential uses under CPB. This results in a conservative estimate of trip generation. Even though our assessment of internalization and mode shift lead to less than 10% of trip reduction credit, the conservative approach of no reduction is reasonable. Project Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Impacts & Mitigations The 2022 CPB traffic study concluded that due to the substantial reduction in CPB traffic generation compared to the Background Phases 1+2 trips analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study, the CPB does not trigger any Phase 3 mitigation measures. Since the LOS for the impacted intersections was not close to exceeding the LOS threshold, assigning the additional office trips from using fitted curve equations (25 trips in the morning peak hour) to the intersections is unlikely to result in a change of LOS grade. The trip assignment of the additional trips results in approximately 5 to 10 more trips in individual movements which will not trigger the impact threshold. Therefore, the remaining mitigation measures are not required and the 2022 CPB traffic study conclusion does not change. The remaining eight mitigation measures for the five impacted intersections are summarized in Table 2. Melissa Durkin December 13, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Table 2: Remaining Intersection Mitigations Intersection Mitigation No. 1 Description of Mitigation Measures from 2005 TIA1 Status 2022 CPB Traffic Study Conclusion for CPB2 Peer Review Comments for CPB #1 Santa Teresa Boulevard/ Fitzgerald Avenue 34 Signalize intersection Add eastbound left and westbound left turn lanes Intersection signalized The mitigation measure has been completed and no additional mitigation measures needed for CPB The signalization mitigates the impact, so no left turn lanes are needed #3 Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street 37 Add second eastbound left and westbound left turn lanes No mitigation measures built The mitigation can be eliminated because is it not triggered by CPB No additional mitigation measures needed 44 Add one eastbound and westbound through lane No mitigation measures built The mitigation can be eliminated because is it not triggered by CPB No additional mitigation measures needed #9 Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue 35 Add a northbound left turn lane Northbound left turn lane built The mitigation measure is required for the CPB but it has already been completed No additional mitigation measures needed 36 Prepare a traffic management plan of the Miller Avenue section southwest of the intersection (within Christmas Hill Park) No mitigation measures built Not mentioned in the 2022 study but addressed in the Glen Loma Ranch Traffic Study Update, Gilroy, CA – Detailed Responses to Peer Review, February 16, 2021 No additional mitigation measures needed 39 Signalize intersection Add northbound and southbound left turn lanes No mitigation measures built The mitigation can be eliminated because is it not triggered by CPB No additional mitigation measures needed #17 Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue 41 Add a second lane to the roundabout if the intersection is converted to a one-lane roundabout Widen Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes Intersection has been converted to roundabout The mitigation can be eliminated because is it not triggered by CPB No additional mitigation measures needed Melissa Durkin December 13, 2023 Page 6 of 7 Intersection Mitigation No. 1 Description of Mitigation Measures from 2005 TIA1 Status 2022 CPB Traffic Study Conclusion for CPB2 Peer Review Comments for CPB #19 Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue 43 Add second northbound and westbound left turn lanes No mitigation measures built The mitigation can be eliminated because is it not triggered by CPB No additional mitigation measures needed Notes: 1. From Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan SCN 2003042018 March 24, 2014. 2. From Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc., 2014; Keith Higgins, 2022; Fehr & Peers, 2023. Melissa Durkin December 13, 2023 Page 7 of 7 Attachment List • Attachment A: Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022 • Attachment B: Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022 • Attachment C: Trip Generation Comparison Table for General Office and Commercial Land Uses Attachment A: Glen Loma Ranch –  Current Projected Buildout, May 26,  2022     2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020 T 408.201.2752 KEITH@KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer May 26, 2022 Glen Loma Group c/o Augie Dent 7888 Wren Ave D143 Gilroy CA 95020 Re: Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout Dear Augie: The original 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan included a maximum of 1,690 dwelling units and 155,500 square feet of non-residential floor area. In connection with the original project approval, my previous firm, Higgins Associates, prepared the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report dated June 6, 2005 (2005 Traffic Study). Tje project has built out at lower intensity than the maximum anticipated under the original EIR and Specific Plan approval, theCurrent Projected Buildout (CPB) for Glen Loma Ranch is as follows: 1. A maximum of 1,275 residential units on lands controlled by Filice/Christopher (953 units completed or under construction, Vesting Tentative Maps in process for an additional 252 units, and up to an additional 70 units, anticipated to be multi-family units located in the town center flex area). 2. A fire station in the town center flex area. 3. Commercial uses on lands controlled by Filice/Christopher in the Town Center that shall not exceed 12,000 square feet. 4. The potential for 192 multi-family housing units on the Olive Grove site that is owned by the Gilroy Unified School District. This letter assesses whether the mitigations recommended for GLR Phases 1+2 in the original 2005 EIRwill be adequate for the CPB. First, it compares the trip generation anticipated from the CPB with the trip generation anticipated from GLR 1+2 in the 2005 Traffic Study. Second, a comparison is provided between the CPB and the GLR 1+2 AM and PM traffic assignments used to calculate levels of service and determine corresponding mitigation measures at the 2005 Traffic Study study intersections and street segments. A. CPB Trip Generation The CPB is projected to generate 11,762 daily trips, 864 AM peak hour trips and 1,123 PM peak hour trips. See Attachment 1, Row 2b. Glen Loma Group May 26, 2022 2 B. GLR 1+2 Trip Generation The 2005 Traffic Study analyzed a development scenario referred to as the “Background Plus Project Phases 1 and 2 Traffic Conditions” (GLR 1+2) which included 1,005 dwelling units and 111,500 square feet of non-residential (primarily retail) floor area. • Phase 1 was projected to generate 4,272 daily trips with 344 in the AM peak hour and 455 in the PM peak hour. • Phase 2 was forecasted to generate 11,766 daily trips including 642 in the AM peak hour and 1,116 in the PM peak hour. • Phases 1 and 2 were expected to generate a total of 16,038 daily trips, 986 AM peak hour trips and 1,571 PM peak hour trips. The above are tabulated on Table 6, “Project Trip Generation,” of the 2005 Traffic Study which is included herein as Attachment 2. The total GLR 1+2 is summarized in Attachment 1, Row 3c. C. GLR 1+2 Trip Assignment It is important to emphasize that no internal trip reduction between residential and retail uses within GLR was credited in the 2005 Traffic Study GLR 1+2 analysis. All GLR 1+2 residential and non-residential trips were assigned to and from locations external to the GLR as shown by Figure 14 of the 2005 Traffic Study, included herein as Appendix A. The corresponding trip assignments at the GLR gateway intersections are tabulated on Attachment 3, totalled on Attachment 4 and summarized on Attachment 1, Row 4. The 2005 Traffic Study GLR 1+2 analysis was very conservative in not applying an internal trip reduction credit and using even higher volumes for the actual intersection level of service analysis on which mitigation recommendations were based. D. Comparison of CPB with GLR 1+2 Trip Generation Estimates Some important comparisons are: • Attachment 1, Row 5a, the current CPB is expected to generate 4,276 less daily trips, 122 less AM peak hour trips and 448 less PM peak hour trips than the 2005 Traffic Study Phase 1+2 estimate. • The CPB daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation totals are about 27%, 12% and 28%, respectively, below the GLR Phase 1+2 trip generation estimates, as indicated on Attachment 1, Row 5b. • The CPB daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation totals are about 17% and 30%, respectively, below the GLR Phase 1+2 AM and PM peak hour trip assignments, as indicated on Attachment 1, Row 6b. The CPB will clearly generate substantially less traffic than anticipated for Phases 1+2 in the 2005 Traffic Study. Glen Loma Group May 26, 2022 3 E. GLR Trip Reduction Effect on Traffic Volumes on Access Routes The reduction in overall GLR trip generation is largely due to the reduction in commercial land uses in the Town Center, which is located in the central part of the GLR. As indicated on the “Percent of Total” column on Attachment 2: • 78% of GLR traffic was expected to impact the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue (15%), Santa Teresa Boulevard / Miller Avenue (20%) and Luchessa Avenue / Thomas Road (42%) intersections, which are the primary access routes to and from the Town Center. • The current non-residential land uses in the Town Center are expected to generate a total of about 575 daily trips with 24 during the AM peak hour and 53 during the PM peak hour, as indicated on Attachment 1, Row 1j. • This is a reduction of 7,250 daily trips, 303 AM peak hour trips and 662 PM peak hour trips from the 7,825 daily, 327 AM peak hour and 715 PM peak hour trips expected from the Town Center non- residential trips in GLR 1+2. Again, all of the considerable GLR 1+2 non-residential trips were assumed to be external to the GLR, much of which were expected to impact the Luchessa Avenue bridge and the Miller Avenue crossing of Uvas Creek. It is clear that the CPB will result in less traffic on the access routes including Thomas Road - Luchessa Avenue, Miller Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard north and south of the GLR than the volumes forecasted in the 2005 Traffic Study. The impacts from the CPB will be less than anticipated from GLR 1+2. The mitigations recommended in the 2005 Traffic Study for GLR 1+2 will therefore adequately mitigate the CPB impacts. F. Current GLR Buildout Trip Generation Comparison with 2005 GLR Buildout Finally, it should also be noted that: • The full buildout of the original GLR was anticipated to generate about 24,294 net daily trips with 1,435 during the AM Peak Hour and 2,399 during the PM Peak Hour (Attachment 1, Row 7c). • The CPB will generate less than one-half as much daily and more significant PM peak hour traffic as the original proposal (Attachment 1, Rows 8 and 9). G. Summary and Conclusion Because the CPB trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2 trip generation, the GLR 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB. No further traffic studies are required. No Phase 3 traffic improvements, including construction of the 10th Street bridge or the Luchessa Ave. bridge widening, are required for the Glen Loma Ranch CPB. Glen Loma Group May 26, 2022 4 If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. Respectfully submitted, Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE Attachments ITE DAILY AM PEAK PM PEAK LAND USE TRIP HOUR HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES CODE RATE RATE RATE Single-Family Detached Housing (per unit)8.77 0.72 0.93 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (per unit)7.41 0.45 0.53 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (per unit)5.44 0.36 0.44 3.69 0.20 0.27 General Office (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 9.74 1.16 1.15 Quality Restaurant (per 1,000 sq. ft.)83.84 0.73 7.80 37.75 0.94 3.81 AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY HOUR HOUR TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS 1. CPB Without Olive Grove a. Single Family Homes 840 units 7,367 601 784 b. Townhomes 277 units 2,053 126 146 c. Apartments 80 units 435 29 35 d. Senior Adult Housing - Attached 78 units 288 15 21 e. Fire Station 0 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.50 12 2 f. General Office 4,000 sq. ft.0 sq. ft.39 5 5 g. Quality Restaurant 4,000 sq. ft.0 sq. ft.335 3 31 h. Commercial 4,000 sq. ft.0 sq. ft.151 4 15 1,275 units 12,000 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.10,718 795 1,039i.Subtotal j.Town Center Non-Residential (1e+f+g+h)575 24 53 2. CPB With Olive Grove a. Olive Grove Apartments 192 units 1,044 69 84 b. Subtotal (1i + 2a)1,467 units 12,000 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.11,762 864 1,123 3. 2005 TRAFFIC STUDY PHASES 1+2 * a. Phase 1 464 units 0 sq. ft.0 sq. ft.4,272 344 455 b. Phase 2 541 units 81,500 sq. ft.30,000 sq. ft.11,766 642 1,116 c. Phases 1+2 (3a + 3b)1,005 units 81,500 sq. ft.30,000 sq. ft.16,038 986 1,571 d. Town Center Non-Residential Subtotal 7,825 327 715 4. Original Phases 1+2 Traffic Assignment per 2005 Traffic Study, Figure 14**1,037 1,605 5. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and 2005 Traffic Study Trip Generation a. Net Numerical Difference (2b - 3c)-4,276 -122 -448 b. Net Percent Difference (5a divided by 3c)-27%-12%-28% 6. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and 2005 Traffic Study Trip Assignment a. Net Numerical Difference (2b - 4)-173 -482 b. Net Percent Difference (6a divided by 4)-17%-30% 7. ORIGINAL GLR BUILDOUT * a. Phase 3 Only 685 units 46,500 sq. ft.27,500 sq. ft.10,955 608 1,095 b. Buildout (3c + 8a)1,690 units 128,000 sq. ft.57,500 sq. ft.26,993 1,594 2,666 c. Net Buildout (7b minus 10% Internal Trips)24,294 1,435 2,399 8. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and Original Buildout (2b - 7c)-12,532 -571 -1,276 9. CPB as Percent of Original Buildout - With Olive Grove (2b divided by 8c)48%60%47% Notes: 1. Trip generation rates - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual," 10th Edition, 2017. 2. Trip activity for all residential land uses utilize fitted curve equations. Cited trip rates are equivalent rates per housing unit. 3. CPB data cited from Glen Loma Ranch Traffic Study for Remaining Traffic Mitigation Measures Per the Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement Section 4.4.7, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, May 19, 2019. Commercial uses represent current CPB max. size. 4. * - 2005 Traffic Study Trip Generation - "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005. See Attachment 2. 5. ** - 2005 Traffic Study Trip Assignment - "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005. See Attachments 3 and 4. 252Senior Adult Housing - Attached (per unit) 210 220 221 710 931 Shopping Center (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 820 CURRENT CPB TOTAL PROJECT SIZE Residential Commercial Municipal/Office Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment 1 Project Trip Generation Comparison TRIP GENERATION RATES Single Family Detached Housing Town Homes Apartments Senior Housing (Congregate Care Facility) 1 Total Number Housing Units General Retail -Specialty Retail - Video Store -Bank Community Building Commercial/Service Restaurants -Quality - High Turnover Supennarket Offices Convenience Market (Northern Commercial) Specialty Retail (Northern Commercial) Total Town Center & Northern Commercial Fire Station2 PROJECT TRIPS • PHASE 1 (2005 to 20101 Single Family Detached Housing Town Homes TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS -PHASE I (Residential only) PROJECT TRIPS -PHASE 2 (2010 to 2014} Single Family Detached Housing Town Homes Apartments. Total Trips Housing Units General Retail -Specialty Retail Commercial/Service Restaurants • Quality -High Turnover Supermarket Offices Convenience Market (Northern Commercial) Specialty Retail (Northern Commercial) Total Trips Town Center & Northern Commercial Fire Station2 TOT AL PROJECT TRIPS • PHASE 2 PROJECT TRIPS· PHASE 3 {2014 to 20181 Single Family Detached Housing Town Homes Senior Housing (Congregate Care Facllity)1 Total Trips Housing Units Community Building General Retail -Specialty Retail -Video Store -Bank Commerc!a!/Service Restaurants -Quality -High Turnover Offices Total Trips Town Center & Northern Commercial TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS - PHASE: 3 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS -BUILDOUT Internal Trips3 (-10%) TOTAL PRIMARY PROJECT BUILDOUTTRIPS Notes: Trip gonora1ion rates p1.1b!ished by Institute ofTransportation Engineers, "Trip Generation," 7th Edition, 2003, unless otherwise noted ITE LAND USE CODE 210 231 220 251 814 896 912 495 SANDAG 931 932 850 710 852 814 ITE LAND USE CODE 210 231 219 231 220 814 SANDAG 931 932 850 710 852 814 210 231 252 495 814 896 912 SANDAG 931 932 710 Table 6 Project Trip Generation DAILY TOTAL PROJECT TRIP PEAK SIZE RATES HOUR 793 Homes 9.57 0.75 570 Units 5.86 0.67 177 Units 6-72 0.51 150 Units 4.52 0.16 1690 Units 20,000 SF 44.32 0.00 4,000 SF 175.00 0.00 5,000 SF 246.49 12.34 5,000 SF 114.00 1.62 25,000 SF 120.00 4.80 10,000 SF 89.95 0.81 10,000 SF 127.15 11.52 34,000 Sf 102.24 3.25 35,000 SF 11.01 1.55 3,000 SF 492.00 31.20 4,500 SF 44.32 0.00 155,500 SF 30,000 SF 50.00 12.00 TOTAL PROJECT DAILY PEAK S!ZE TRIPS HOUR 405 Homes 3,876 304 59 Units 396 40 464 Units 4,272 344 167 Homes 1,598 125 197 Units 1,154 100 177 Units 1,189 90 541 Units 3,941 315 10,000 SF 443 0 12,500 SF 1,500 60 2,500 SF 225 2 2,500 SF 318 29 34,000 SF 3,476 111 12,500 SF 138 19 3,000 SF 1,476 94 4,500 SF 199 0 81,500 SF 7,775 315 30,000 SF 50 12 11,766 642 221 Homes 2,115 166 314 Units 1,840 160 150 Units 678 25 685 Units 4,633 351 5,000 SF 570 8 10,000 SF 443 0 4,000 SF 700 0 5,000 SF 1,232 82 12,500 SF 1,500 60 7,500 SF 675 6 7,500 SF 954 86 22,500 SF 248 35 74,000 SF 6,322 257 10,955 608 26,993 1,594 2,699 159 1690 Units 24,294 1,435 155 500 SF 1. Based on a Paper Presented at the ITE 661h Ann1.1al Mooting on Somor Housing Trip Generation and Parking Characteristics 2. Based on discussions with Engineer Anthony Holiday 217/03 3. Internal capture rate of non-rosiden1ial trips DUE TO Neighborhood District Land Use HIGGINS ASSOCIATES PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES & DISTRIBUTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR % TOTAL % OF PEAK OF Dailv Trins IN OUT HOUR Dailv Trins IN OUT._� 8% 0.25 0.75 1.01 11% 0.63 0.37 11% 0.25 0.75 0.78 13% 0.58 0.42 8% 0.20 0.80 0.62 9% 0.65 0.35 4% 0.45 0.55 0.25 5% 0.61 0.39 0% 0.00 0.00 2.71 6% 0.44 0.56 0% 0.00 0.00 13.60 8% 0.46 0.54 5% 0.56 0.44 45.74 19% 0.50 0.50 1% 0.61 0.39 1.64 1% 0.29 0.71 4% 0.60 0.40 12.00 10% 0.50 0.50 1% 0.50 0.50 7.49 8% 0.67 0.33 9% 0.52 0.48 10.92 9% 0.61 0.39 3% 0.61 0.39 10.45 10% 0.51 0.49 14% 0.88 0.12 1.49 14% 0.17 0.83 6% 0.50 0.50 34.57 7% 0.49 0.51 0% 0.00 0.00 2.71 6% 0.44 0.56 24% 6.00 6.00 2.00 4°/o 1.00 1.00 -·------·---L...---· NUMBER OF TRIPS.GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR % TOTAL % OF TRIPS TRIPS PEAK OF TRIPS TRIPS Dailv Trins IN OUT HOUR Dailv Trins IN OUT 8% 76 228 409 11% 258 151 10% 10 30 46 12% 27 19 8% 86 258 455 11% 285 170 8% 31 94 169 11% 106 63 9% 20 80 122 11% 79 43 8% 18 72 110 9% 72 38 8% 69 246 401 10% 257 144 0% 0 0 27 6% 12 15 4% 36 24 150 10% 75 75 1% 1 1 19 8% 13 6 9</0 15 14 27 8% 16 11 3% 68 43 355 10% 181 174 14% 17 2 19 14% 3 16 6% 47 47 104 7% 51 53 0% 0 0 12 6% 5 7 4% 184 131 713 9% 356 357 24% 6 6 2 4% 1 1 5% 259 383 1,116 9% 614 502 8% 42 124 223 11% 140 83 9% 32 128 195 11% 127 68 4% 11 14 37 5% 23 14 8% 85 266 455 10% 290 165 1% 5 3 8 1% 2 6 0% 0 0 27 6% 12 15 0<'.1/o 0 0 54 8% 25 29 5% 35 27 229 19% 115 114 4% 36 24 150 10% 75 75 1% 3 3 56 8% 38 18 9% 45 41 82 9% 50 32 14% 31 4 34 14% 6 28 4% 155 102 640 10% 323 317 6% 240 368 1,095 10% 613 482 6% 585 1,009 2,666 10% 1,512 1,154 59 101 267 151 115 6% 526 908 2,399 10% 1,361 1,039 Attachment 2 - 2005 Traffic Study 0(0)55(134)192 (145)0(0)1(2)7 (5) 56 (134)28(64)0(0)122(92)3(2)0(0) 0(0)0(0)14(34)70(53)4(3)0(0) 0(0)0(0)28(58) 0(0)0(0)19(29) 9(19)4(8)34(25)6(19)20(36)31(76)86 (210)2(8)54(128)2(4)3 (6) 81 (112)14(36)0(0)0(0)0(0)88(137)107 (184) 149 (411)0(0)0(0)0(0)1(2)86(151)0(0)3(2) 0(0)137(379)0(0)21(33)0(0)4(3) 0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)239(230)0(0) 0(0)26(26)4(8)0(0)13(17)2(5)91 (142) 265 (256)12(32)0(0)0(0)2(8)54(128)2(4)29(30)0(0)95(110)5. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Club Drive 7. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Ballybunion Drive - West Luchessa Avenue 9. Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive 10. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Miller Avenue - Tenth Street17(40)95(110)0(0)11. Thomas Road / West Luchessa Avenue 6. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Ballybunion Drive Club Dr.Santa Teresa Blvd.Ballybunion Dr.Santa Teresa Blvd.Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.Santa Teresa W Luchessa Ave. Miller Ave.Thomas Rd.W. Luchessa Ave. Tenth St. Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment 3 Phase 1 and 2 Trip Assignment AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes Percent Percent In Out Total of Total In Out Total of Total A. Figure 14 - Trip Assignment - Phase 1 + Phase 2 No.Name 5 Santa Teresa /Club 86 192 278 27%210 145 355 22% 7 Santa Teresa /Ballybunion 3 7 10 1%6 5 11 1% 9 Uvas Park /Miller 56 81 137 13%134 112 246 15% 10 Santa Teresa /Miller 91 107 198 19%142 184 326 20% 11 Luchessa /Thomas 149 265 414 40%411 256 667 42% Total 385 652 1,037 100%903 702 1,605 100% B. Table 6 - Project Trip Generation Totals GLR Phase 1 86 258 344 285 170 455 GLR Phase 2 259 383 642 614 502 1,116 Phases 1+2 345 641 986 899 672 1,571 40 11 51 4 30 34 112%102%105%100%104%102% Intersection Source: "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005 (2005 Traffic Study), Table 6 and Figure 14. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D. GLR 1+2 Trip Assignment as Percent of GLR 1+2 Trip C. Trip Assignment Increase Above Trip Generation Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment 4 Glen Loma Ranch Phase 1+2 Trip Assignments APPENDIX A -2005 TRAFFIC STUDY,FIGURE 14 Attachment B: Glen Loma Ranch –  Comparison of Intersection Mitigations  in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected  Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022  2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020 T 408.201.2752 KEITH@KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer June 7, 2022 Glen Loma Group c/o Augie Dent 7888 Wren Avenue D143 Gilroy, CA 95020 Re: Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB) Dear Augie: This letter is in response to a request by Jon Biggs, Gilroy Interim Planning Director, to analyze the effect of the reduced trip generation from the Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout (CPB) on project traffic distribution, assignment and traffic operations at the following intersections and streets with remaining mitigation measures. 1.Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue (Mitigation 34) 2.Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) (Mitigations 37 and 44) 3.Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive (Mitigations 35 and 39) 4.Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street (Mitigation 40) 5.Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 41) 6.Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue (Associated with Mitigation 41) 7.Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 43) The locations of these intersections are shown on Attachment A. For reference, the original 2005 Project mitigations for these seven intersections are excerpted in Attachment B. A. CPB Trip Generation Summary My letter to you dated May 26, 2022 indicated that the CPB will generate about 11,762 daily trips with 864 in the AM peak hour and 1,123 in the PM peak hour. These are about 27% less daily trips and 17% less AM traffic and 30% less PM traffic than was anticipated for Glen Loma Ranch Phases 1+2 (Phases 1+2). The CPB is also expected to generate about 60% less AM peak hour traffic and 40% less PM peak hour traffic than the 24,294 daily, 1,435 AM and 2,399 PM trips anticipated for the original Glen Loma Ranch Buildout. Glen Loma Group June 7, 2022 2 B.CPB Traffic Volume Forecasts The CPB AM and PM peak hour trip assignments to the study intersections are illustrated on Attachment C using the same trip distribution and assignment assumptions used in the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report,” June 6, 2005, prepared by my previous firm, Higgins Associates, (2005 Traffic Study). CPB volumes are added to the 2005 Traffic Study Background volumes, the base volumes for the analysis of Phases 1+2 impacts. The resulting CPB volumes are depicted on Attachment D. C.Background Plus CPB Traffic Operations Attachment E provides a summary table with Background plus Phases 1+2 (Phases 1+2) levels of service and recommended mitigation measures used as the basis for the mitigation measures described in Attachment B. It also tabulates levels of service and recommended mitigation measures with the lower CPB volumes. The results by intersection are as follows. 1.Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue (Mitigation 34) The Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue intersection had four-way stop control at the time when the 2005 Traffic Study was prepared. The mitigation included the installation of a traffic signal for Phases 1+2 traffic conditions. The traffic signal was installed many years ago. No additional mitigations were identified to accommodate Phases 1+2. The CPB will result in less traffic at this intersection, with slightly improved traffic operations compared to what was expected with Phases 1+2 impacts. No additional mitigations are required for the CPB. 2.Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) (Mitigations 37 & 44) The Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) intersection was expected to operate at LOS C under Phases 1+2 conditions. CPB traffic operations will be slightly better than what was expected under the Phases 1 + 2 condition. Mitigations 37 and 44 were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB. 3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive (Mitigations 35 & 39) Phases 1+2 mitigation at the Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive intersection included the installation of a northbound Uvas Park Drive left turn lane. This mitigation will be required for the CPB as well, although traffic volumes will be lower than expected with Phases 1+2. Mitigation 39 was identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus is not triggered at this intersection by the CPB. 4.Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street (Mitigation 40) The Princevalle Street / 10th St intersection was signalized in 2005. The mitigation at this intersection included adding left turn traffic signal phasing (left turn arrows) on all four intersection approaches to better accommodate the high amount of pedestrian traffic before and after school hours at Gilroy High School and Glen View Glen Loma Group June 7, 2022 3 Elementary School. The left turn phasing was installed many years ago. No additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection. 5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 41) The mitigation at the Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue intersection was the conversion of an all-way stop controlled channelized intersection to a one lane roundabout. This was constructed in 2015. It was adequate mitigation for Phases 1+2 and will adequately mitigate the lower volumes now anticipated for the CPB. No additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection. 6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue (indirectly associated with Mitigation 41 and Luchessa Avenue bridge widening) The Princevalle / Luchessa Avenue intersection had stop control and no eastbound Luchessa Avenue left turn lane in 2005. Mitigation was recommended to include a traffic signal and eastbound left turn lane, which were installed in 2016. This mitigation is adequate to accommodate Phases 1+2. It will operate better with the lower volume CPB. No additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection. 7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 43) The Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue intersection was determined in the 2005 EIR to not require mitigation to accommodate Phases 1+2 impacts. The impacts for the CPB will be reduced from the impacts expected under Phases 1 + 2. It will therefore operate acceptably with no mitigation for the CPB. Mitigation 43 was identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus is not triggered at this intersection for the CPB. D. Summary and Conclusion Because the CPB trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2 trip generation, the Phases 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB. The specific CPB mitigations at each study intersection are summarized below. 1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue – No additional mitigations are required for the CPB. 2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) – Mitigations at this intersection were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB. 3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive – The existing mitigation measure to construct a northbound Uvas Park Drive left turn lane will be required for the CPB. 4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is required by the CPB from what has already been installed. 5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is required by the CPB from what has already been installed. 6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is required by the CPB from what has already been installed. Glen Loma Group June 7, 2022 4 7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigations at this intersection were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB. The major finding is that, due to the substantial reduction in CPB traffic generation compared to the GLR Phases 1+2 analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study, the CPB does not trigger any Phase 3 mitigation measures. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. Respectfully submitted, Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE Attachments INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WITH REMAINING GLEN LOMA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES Uvas Park at Miller Mitigations #35, #36, & #39 Princevalle at 10th Street Mitigation #40 Luchessa Bridge Mitigation #41 Monterey Road at Luchessa Mitigation #43 Santa Teresa at First Street Mitigations #37 & #44 Attachment A, Sheet 1 of 2 INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WITH REMAINING GLEN LOMA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES Santa Teresa at Fitzgerald Mitigation #34 Attachment A, Sheet 2 of 2 Attachment B Transportation Mitigation Measures for the Subject Intersections from the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan SCN 2003042018, Dated: March 24, 2014 This information is provided for reference only. 3.8 Transportation/Traffic Mitigations for Subject Intersections – Full 2005 Project 34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound and westbound left tum lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. Note: MM 34 partially implemented – the signal was built at this location and is operational. 35. Add a northbound left tum lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II. 37. Add second eastbound and westbound left tum lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and southbound left-tum lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase Ill. 40. Convert the signal phasing at the Princevalle Street/Tenth Street intersection from permitted phasing to protected phasing. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Note: MM 40 has been implemented – the signal modification was installed at this location and is operational. 41. If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. OR If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right tum lane was added, add a second westbound left tum lane and westbound through lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Attachment B Transportation Mitigation Measures for the Subject Intersections from the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan SCN 2003042018, Dated: March 24, 2014 This information is provided for reference only. 3.8 Transportation/Traffic Mitigations for Subject Intersections – Full 2005 Project (continued) 42. Signalize the Princevalle Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection and add an eastbound left tum lane. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. Note: MM 42 complete – the project was built and is operational. 43. Add second northbound and westbound left tum lanes at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 44. Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard. The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III. 0(0)0(0)23(45)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)12(24)12(25)14(12)0(0)0(0) 0(0)23(41)0(0)0(0)16(20)28(18)5(10)28(18)0(0)6(8)113(80)35(22)12(25)0(0)0(0)0(0)5(3)0(0)0(0)0(0)114 (265) 114 (265)4(9)0(0)48(116)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0) 114(265)110(256)24(56)0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)7(8)99(83)198(161)192(154)51(39)22(18)0(0)11(6)10(22)0(0)0(0)198 (161) 199 (162)0(0)0(0)0(0)22(49)0(0)0(0)17. Thomas Road / Luchessa Ave.18. Princevalle St. / Luchessa Ave.19. Monterey Rd. / Luchessa Ave.0(0)0(0)0(0)3. Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.9. Miller Ave. / Uvas Park Dr.13. Princevalle St. / Tenth St.52(44)0(0)2(4)First St.Santa Teresa Blvd.Uvas Park Dr.Princevalle St.Thomas Rd.Miller Ave. Tenth St.Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave. Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment C Project Trip Assignment Current Project Buildout AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Page 1 of 2) 0(0)0(0)0(0) 0(0)15(30) 0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)31(22)33(21)1. Santa Teresa Blvd. / Fitzgerald Ave.13(32)Fitzgerald Ave.Santa Teresa Blvd.Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment C Project Trip Assignment Current Project Buildout AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Page 2 of 2) 87(78)445(373)59(122)12(13)32(16)117(102)270(344)25(27)101(126)155(285)123(79)347(536)246(218)56(12)115(79) 41(96)36(52)107(14)220(275)67(27)428(376)111(77)164(102)126(14)88(107)495(321)289(163)108(156)253(445)12(10)95(114)147(101)130(73)0(0)0(0)597 (764) 596 (764)172(93)73(72)83(180)83(35)0(0)93(107)24(92) 193(297)424(671)103(258)404(467)0(0)92(285) 0(0)171(65)136(128)274(180)533(413)237(152)98(24)0(0)216(218)113(28)0(0)429(297)703 (477) 704 (478)0(0)0(0)0(0)269(356)244(261)351(138)3. Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.9. Miller Ave. / Uvas Park Dr.13. Princevalle St. / Tenth St.578(462)392(325)202(117)17. Thomas Road / Luchessa Ave.18. Princevalle St. / Luchessa Ave.19. Monterey Rd. / Luchessa Ave.0(0)0(0)160(275)First St.Santa Teresa Blvd.Uvas Park Dr.Princevalle St.Thomas Rd.Miller Ave. Tenth St.Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave. Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment D Background Plus Current Project Buildout AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Page 1 of 2) 2(0)15(21)18(20) 6(8)222(494) 4(0)4(10)5(11)5(8)380(233)459(223)1. Santa Teresa Blvd. / Fitzgerald Ave.197(389)Fitzgerald Ave.Santa Teresa Blvd.Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer Attachment D Background Plus Current Project Buildout AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Page 2 of 2) Level of 2005 Service Intersection Operations Standard Control Type Del LOS Del LOS Del LOS Del LOS 1 Santa Teresa Fitzgerald County: LOS D All-Way Stop Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 14.8 B 35.2 E 14.7 B 31.4 D City: LOS C Improvements Already Implemented Delay and LOS With Mitigations 21.1 C+30.5 C 21.0 C+29.6 C Recommended CPB Mitigation 3 Santa Teresa First City: LOS C Signal Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 25.0 C 25.3 C 25.0 C 25.1 C Delay and LOS With Mitigations 9 Miller Uvas City: LOS C All-Way Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 28.8 D 46.2 E 21.3 C 44.0 E Stop Delay and LOS With NB Uvas Left Only 24.9 C 24.0 C 19.5 C 23.4 C Add NB Uvas Left Turn Lane Recommended CPB Mitigation Add NB Uvas Left Turn Lane 13 Princevalle Tenth City: LOS C Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 10.1 B+9.1 A 10.2 B+9.2 A GLR EIR Mitigation Recommended CPB Mitigation 17 Thomas Luchessa City: LOS C All-Way Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 60.8 F 114.1 F 51.1 F 64.7 F Stop Delay and LOS With Mitigations 6.9 A 8.7 A 6.6 A 6.9 A Recommended CPB Mitigation 1-Lane Roundabout 18 Princevalle Luchessa City: LOS D Princevalle Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 28.4 D 34.9 D 25.0 D 25.8 D Stop Sign Improvements Already Implemented Recommended CPB Mitigation 19 Monterey Luchessa Signal Unmitigated Delay and LOS with Improvements in place in 2005 23.9 C 29.4 C 23.4 C 28.0 C Recommended CPB Mitigation Notes: 1. Delays under Background + Phases 1+2 were verified in analysis model, prior to use under Background + CPB, to either match exactly the values in 2005 report or to be no more than 1.0 seconds different. Attachment E Remaining Glen Loma Ranch Intersections Levels of Service with GLR Phases 1+2 and CPB None Required LT Phasing all 4 directions is already in place. LT Phasing all 4 directions is already in place. None Required GLR EIR Mitigation None Required GLR EIR Mitigation None Required Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Traffic Signal with No Left Turn Phases GLR EIR Mitigation 1-Lane Roundabout N.A. N.A.GLR EIR Mitigation GLR EIR Mitigation None Required N.A. Recommended CPB Mitigation N.A.None Required GLR EIR Mitigation Traffic Signal already installed. None Required. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal N.A. N.A.Traffic Signal already installed. None Required. Intersection Background + CPB AM PM Background + Phases 1+2 (2005 TIA) AM PM Appendix 1 Level of Service Calculations Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):80 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.646 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.1 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald AveApproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 4 4 4 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07 Final Sat.: 578 631 720 508 546 5 156 156 195 509 14 41 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.61 0.65 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44 Crit Moves:******** ******** Delay/Veh: 8.9 16.7 16.0 9.7 12.4 12.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 13.7 13.7 13.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.9 16.7 16.0 9.7 12.4 12.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 13.7 13.7 13.7 LOS by Move: A C C A B B A A A B B B ApproachDel: 16.3 12.2 9.6 13.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 16.3 12.2 9.6 13.7 LOS by Appr:C B A B AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.646 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.0 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 89 518 295 445 590 87 41 220 112 249 155 270 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 89 518 295 445 590 87 41 220 112 249 155 270 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ******** ****Green Time: 7.4 14.8 14.8 15.3 22.6 22.6 6.2 12.5 12.5 15.4 21.7 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.65 0.40 0.65 0.48 0.08 0.26 0.65 0.18 0.65 0.26 0.00 Uniform Del: 29.5 25.2 23.8 24.9 19.0 16.4 29.7 26.7 24.4 24.8 18.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.0 1.8 0.7 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.9 4.3 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 31.4 27.1 24.5 27.0 19.3 16.5 30.6 31.0 24.6 28.6 18.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.4 27.1 24.5 27.0 19.3 16.5 30.6 31.0 24.6 28.6 18.4 0.0 LOS by Move: C C C C B- B C C C C B- A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 6 3 6 5 1 1 6 1 6 3 0 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.906 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.8 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Uvas Park Dr. Miller Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.84 0.14 0.15 0.25 0.60 0.27 0.61 0.12 Final Sat.: 148 341 16 14 455 74 70 119 289 118 263 53 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.50 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves:**** ************ Delay/Veh: 27.3 27.3 27.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 18.7 18.7 18.7 16.5 16.5 16.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.3 27.3 27.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 18.7 18.7 18.7 16.5 16.5 16.5 LOS by Move: D D D E E E C C C C C C ApproachDel: 27.3 41.5 18.7 16.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 27.3 41.5 18.7 16.5 LOS by Appr:D E C C AllWayAvgQ: 2.4 2.4 2.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.419 Loss Time (sec): 6 Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.1 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service:B+ ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Princevalle St. Tenth St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control:Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 994 806 1750 1555 245 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06 Crit Moves: ********Green Time: 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.34 0.11 Uniform Del: 13.2 14.6 14.6 13.3 14.3 14.3 6.6 8.1 6.7 6.7 7.6 6.6 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 13.3 15.1 15.1 13.5 14.7 14.7 6.7 8.3 6.8 6.7 7.8 6.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.3 15.1 15.1 13.5 14.7 14.7 6.7 8.3 6.8 6.7 7.8 6.7 LOS by Move: B B B B B B A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 4 2 4 4 1 5 1 1 4 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):1.133 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 60.8 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.21 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.35 0.00 Final Sat.: 126 0 471 0 0 0 0 490 542 357 191 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.91 xxxx 0.91 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.64 0.19 1.13 1.13 xxxx Crit Moves:************ Delay/Veh: 42.8 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 10.7 104.7 105 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.8 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 10.7 104.7 105 0.0 LOS by Move: E * E * * * * C B F F * ApproachDel: 42.8 xxxxxx 18.9 104.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 42.8 xxxxxx 18.9 104.7 LOS by Appr:E *C F AllWayAvgQ: 5.6 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 14.5 14.5 14.5 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 28.4] ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights:Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 74 0 173 172 573 0 0 448 94 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 74 0 173 172 573 0 0 448 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 74 0 173 172 573 0 0 448 94 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 74 0 173 172 573 0 0 448 94 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1412 xxxx 495 542 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 154 xxxx 579 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 132 xxxx 579 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 xxxx 0.30 0.17 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.8 xxxx 1.2 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 62.5 xxxx 13.9 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * F * B A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 28.4 xxxxxx xxxxxxApproachLOS: * D * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.437 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.9 Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Ovl Ovl Ovl OvlMin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1473 327 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves:**** ******** ****Green Time: 31.2 30.5 41.3 9.8 9.0 29.8 20.7 27.0 58.2 10.8 17.1 26.8 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.16 0.39 0.44 0.19 0.44 0.39 0.25 Uniform Del: 22.5 21.1 16.5 37.6 38.0 21.3 29.3 25.4 6.4 36.8 31.9 23.9 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.1 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 23.0 21.1 16.9 39.2 38.8 21.4 29.9 25.9 6.5 38.2 32.6 24.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 23.0 21.1 16.9 39.2 38.8 21.4 29.9 25.9 6.5 38.2 32.6 24.2 LOS by Move: C+ C+ B D D+ C+ C C A D+ C- C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 2 7 3 3 2 4 6 3 3 4 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.980 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 36.2 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald AveApproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 4 4 4 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04 Final Sat.: 452 485 535 460 492 0 0 202 223 517 8 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.50 0.43 0.05 0.82 xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.05 0.98 0.98 0.98 Crit Moves: **************** Delay/Veh: 10.7 17.0 14.1 10.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 58.5 58.5 58.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.7 17.0 14.1 10.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 58.5 58.5 58.5 LOS by Move: B C B B D * * B B F F F ApproachDel: 15.5 32.9 11.1 58.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 15.5 32.9 11.1 58.5 LOS by Appr:C D B F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.584 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.3 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd. First St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 111 356 171 373 481 78 96 275 80 223 285 344 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 111 356 171 373 481 78 96 275 80 223 285 344 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 111 356 86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 111 356 86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 111 356 86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ******** ****Green Time: 8.5 11.2 11.2 14.2 16.9 16.9 8.7 17.3 17.3 15.3 23.9 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.58 0.30 0.58 0.52 0.09 0.44 0.58 0.09 0.58 0.44 0.00 Uniform Del: 28.9 27.2 25.9 25.2 23.0 20.6 28.4 23.2 20.3 24.5 17.9 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.4 1.5 0.6 1.4 0.6 0.1 1.4 1.9 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 31.2 28.7 26.6 26.6 23.6 20.7 29.8 25.1 20.4 26.9 18.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.2 28.7 26.6 26.6 23.6 20.7 29.8 25.1 20.4 26.9 18.4 0.0 LOS by Move: C C C C C C+ C C C+ C B- A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 5 2 5 5 1 3 6 1 6 5 0 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.056 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.2 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Uvas Park Dr. Miller Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.27 0.71 0.02 0.03 0.68 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.70 0.21 Final Sat.: 159 422 9 16 396 172 189 73 227 41 311 93 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.06 1.06 1.06 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 76.9 76.9 76.9 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.2 13.2 13.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 76.9 76.9 76.9 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.2 13.2 13.2 LOS by Move: F F F D D D C C C B B B ApproachDel: 76.9 30.1 15.7 13.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 76.9 30.1 15.7 13.2 LOS by Appr: F D C B AllWayAvgQ: 11.1 11.1 11.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.428 Loss Time (sec): 6 Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.1 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Princevalle St. Tenth St. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 1045 755 1750 1587 213 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.43 0.43 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.43 0.11 Uniform Del: 19.2 19.9 19.9 19.1 19.4 19.4 3.2 4.0 3.2 3.3 4.5 3.4 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 19.6 20.6 20.6 19.4 19.9 19.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.4 4.7 3.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.6 20.6 20.6 19.4 19.9 19.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.4 4.7 3.5 LOS by Move: B- C+ C+ B- B- B- A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 3 3 2 2 2 0 3 0 1 5 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.348 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 114.1 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Thomas Rd. Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.11 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.47 0.00 Final Sat.: 71 0 553 0 0 0 0 561 630 346 305 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.54 xxxx 0.54 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.44 0.05 1.35 1.35 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 8.6 184.3 184 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 8.6 184.3 184 0.0 LOS by Move: B * B * * * * B A F F * ApproachDel: 14.9 xxxxxx 13.2 184.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 14.9 xxxxxx 13.2 184.3 LOS by Appr: B * B F AllWayAvgQ: 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 31.8 31.8 31.8 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 34.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Princevalle St. Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 97 67 478 0 0 780 107 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 72 0 97 67 478 0 0 780 107 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 72 0 97 67 478 0 0 780 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 72 0 97 67 478 0 0 780 107 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1446 xxxx 834 887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 147 xxxx 371 772 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 137 xxxx 371 772 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.53 xxxx 0.26 0.09 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.5 xxxx 1.0 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 57.6 xxxx 18.1 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * F * C B * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * B * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 34.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * D * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.680 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.4 Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Monterey Rd. Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Ovl Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1357 443 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 28.5 29.5 55.3 8.6 9.6 22.0 12.4 14.2 42.7 25.8 27.5 36.1 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.68 0.54 0.68 0.57 0.27 0.57 0.68 0.52 Uniform Del: 26.8 21.8 7.3 37.6 38.7 29.6 36.9 35.1 14.2 27.4 27.4 20.4 IncremntDel: 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 4.7 1.3 7.6 2.6 0.2 1.6 3.4 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 30.2 21.9 7.3 38.2 43.4 30.9 44.6 37.7 14.4 28.9 30.8 21.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 30.2 21.9 7.3 38.2 43.4 30.9 44.6 37.7 14.4 28.9 30.8 21.0 LOS by Move: C C+ A D+ D C D D+ B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 11 3 2 1 5 7 6 5 4 8 11 9 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 11, 2022 11:33:25 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.471 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.1 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service: C+ ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 19 585 585 731 1717 46 137 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.9 26.7 26.7 7.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.53 0.64 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.64 Uniform Del: 22.6 16.8 17.7 28.6 20.1 20.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.5 25.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 3.6 3.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 22.6 17.6 19.7 28.8 20.6 20.6 26.0 26.0 26.0 29.1 29.1 29.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 22.6 17.6 19.7 28.8 20.6 20.6 26.0 26.0 26.0 29.1 29.1 29.1 LOS by Move: C+ B B- C C+ C+ C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 9 0 4 4 0 0 0 6 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Thu May 26, 2022 12:14:09 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.895 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Uvas Park Dr. Miller Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 0.02 0.84 0.14 0.15 0.25 0.60 0.27 0.61 0.12 Final Sat.: 449 459 22 14 461 75 72 124 301 123 275 55 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.48 0.48 0.48 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 12.8 18.2 18.2 39.9 39.9 39.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 15.8 15.8 15.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.8 18.2 18.2 39.9 39.9 39.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 15.8 15.8 15.8 LOS by Move: B C C E E E C C C C C C ApproachDel: 16.6 39.9 17.9 15.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 16.6 39.9 17.9 15.8 LOS by Appr: C E C C AllWayAvgQ: 0.3 1.1 1.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Thu May 26, 2022 12:24:00 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.9 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes:1 0 1 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| PCE Module: AutoPCE: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AdjVolume: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 315 735 404 115 MaxVolume: 1030 xxxxxx 982 1138 PedVolume:0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 1030 xxxxxx 982 1138 ApproachVol: 544 xxxxxx 417 620 ApproachV/C: 0.53 1.00 0.42 0.54 ApproachDel: 7.3 xxxxxx 6.3 6.9 ApproachLOS:A *A A Queue:3.2 xxxx 2.1 3.4 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 11, 2022 11:35:24 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):80 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.599 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.5 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 905 995 1801 28 71 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **************** Green Time: 7.0 17.2 17.2 11.7 21.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 29.1 29.1 29.1 Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.60 0.57 0.08 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.77 0.77 0.77 Uniform Del: 33.4 28.3 28.1 29.5 26.8 0.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 22.5 22.5 22.5 IncremntDel: 0.1 2.4 1.8 0.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 33.6 30.7 29.9 29.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 28.0 28.0 28.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 30.7 29.9 29.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 28.0 28.0 28.0 LOS by Move: C- C C C C- A A C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 6 0 11 0 0 1 1 14 14 14 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Thu May 26, 2022 12:16:21 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.822 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.0 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.68 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.70 0.21 Final Sat.: 512 541 12 16 399 173 189 73 226 42 311 93 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **************** Delay/Veh: 12.9 31.2 31.2 28.6 28.6 28.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 12.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.9 31.2 31.2 28.6 28.6 28.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 12.7 LOS by Move: B D D D D D B B B B B B ApproachDel: 26.3 28.6 15.0 12.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 26.3 28.6 15.0 12.7 LOS by Appr:D D B B AllWayAvgQ: 0.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Thu May 26, 2022 12:26:49 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.8 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes:1 0 1 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| PCE Module: AutoPCE: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AdjVolume: 38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 249 916 467 38 MaxVolume: 1066 xxxxxx 948 1179 PedVolume:0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 1066 xxxxxx 948 1179 ApproachVol: 335 xxxxxx 281 878 ApproachV/C: 0.31 1.00 0.30 0.74 ApproachDel: 4.9 xxxxxx 5.4 11.3 ApproachLOS:A *A B Queue:1.4 xxxx 1.2 7.3 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):80 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.636 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.7 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 4 4 4 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07 Final Sat.: 581 633 722 510 548 6 157 157 196 509 14 41 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.60 0.64 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44 Crit Moves:**** ******** **** Delay/Veh: 8.9 16.2 15.6 9.7 12.3 12.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.9 16.2 15.6 9.7 12.3 12.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 LOS by Move: A C C A B B A A A B B B ApproachDel: 15.8 12.1 9.5 13.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 15.8 12.1 9.5 13.5 LOS by Appr:C B A B AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.637 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.0 Optimal Cycle: 48 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 88 495 289 445 578 87 41 220 111 246 155 270 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 88 495 289 445 578 87 41 220 111 246 155 270 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 88 495 145 445 578 44 41 220 56 246 155 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 88 495 145 445 578 44 41 220 56 246 155 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 88 495 145 445 578 44 41 220 56 246 155 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ******** ****Green Time: 7.4 14.3 14.3 15.5 22.4 22.4 6.3 12.7 12.7 15.4 21.9 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.64 0.40 0.64 0.47 0.08 0.26 0.64 0.17 0.64 0.26 0.00 Uniform Del: 29.5 25.5 24.1 24.7 19.1 16.6 29.7 26.5 24.2 24.7 18.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 1.9 1.8 0.7 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 3.9 0.3 3.5 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 31.4 27.2 24.9 26.7 19.4 16.6 30.6 30.4 24.5 28.3 18.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.4 27.2 24.9 26.7 19.4 16.6 30.6 30.4 24.5 28.3 18.2 0.0 LOS by Move: C C C C B- B C C C C B- A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 6 3 6 5 1 1 6 1 6 3 0 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.810 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.3 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Uvas Park Dr. Miller Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.61 0.12 Final Sat.: 155 364 17 15 484 73 67 124 304 123 271 55 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves: ******** ******** Delay/Veh: 21.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.5 14.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.5 14.5 LOS by Move: C C C D D D C C C B B B ApproachDel: 21.0 28.0 15.4 14.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 21.0 28.0 15.4 14.5 LOS by Appr:C D C B AllWayAvgQ: 1.7 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.421 Loss Time (sec): 6 Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.2 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service:B+ ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Princevalle St. Tenth St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control:Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 955 845 1750 1554 246 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06 Crit Moves: ********Green Time: 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.34 0.11 Uniform Del: 12.8 14.3 14.3 13.0 13.9 13.9 6.9 8.4 7.0 7.0 7.9 6.9 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 12.9 14.7 14.7 13.1 14.2 14.2 7.0 8.7 7.1 7.0 8.1 6.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.9 14.7 14.7 13.1 14.2 14.2 7.0 8.7 7.1 7.0 8.1 6.9 LOS by Move: B B B B B B A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 4 2 4 4 1 5 1 1 4 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):1.071 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 51.1 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.21 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.32 0.00 Final Sat.: 126 0 478 0 0 0 0 491 543 377 180 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.90 xxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 0.18 1.07 1.07 xxxx Crit Moves: ************ Delay/Veh: 39.4 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 10.6 83.4 83.4 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.4 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 10.6 83.4 83.4 0.0 LOS by Move: E * E * * * * C B F F * ApproachDel: 39.4 xxxxxx 16.2 83.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 39.4 xxxxxx 16.2 83.4 LOS by Appr:E *C F AllWayAvgQ: 5.1 5.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 11.4 11.4 11.4 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 25.0] ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights:Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 73 0 172 171 533 0 0 424 93 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 73 0 172 171 533 0 0 424 93 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 73 0 172 171 533 0 0 424 93 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 73 0 172 171 533 0 0 424 93 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1346 xxxx 471 517 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 169 xxxx 597 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 146 xxxx 597 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.50 xxxx 0.29 0.16 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.4 xxxx 1.2 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 52.4 xxxx 13.4 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * F * B A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 25.0 xxxxxx xxxxxxApproachLOS: * D * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.448 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.4 Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Ovl Ovl Ovl OvlMin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1460 340 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves:**** ******** ****Green Time: 33.2 29.7 40.3 9.5 6.0 26.3 20.3 28.2 61.4 10.6 18.4 28.0 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.19 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.16 0.34 0.45 0.18 0.45 0.34 0.23 Uniform Del: 21.2 21.6 17.2 37.8 40.3 23.6 29.2 24.7 5.2 37.0 30.6 23.0 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.1 0.4 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 21.6 21.7 17.6 39.5 41.4 23.8 29.8 25.2 5.3 38.6 31.2 23.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.6 21.7 17.6 39.5 41.4 23.8 29.8 25.2 5.3 38.6 31.2 23.2 LOS by Move: C+ C+ B D D C C C A D+ C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 2 7 3 2 2 4 6 2 3 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.943 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 31.4 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 4 4 4 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04 Final Sat.: 454 487 538 464 497 0 0 206 226 524 8 21 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.46 0.41 0.05 0.78 xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.05 0.94 0.94 0.94 Crit Moves: ************ **** Delay/Veh: 10.5 15.5 13.4 10.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 49.4 49.4 49.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.5 15.5 13.4 10.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 49.4 49.4 49.4 LOS by Move: B C B B D * * B B E E E ApproachDel: 14.4 28.5 10.8 49.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 14.4 28.5 10.8 49.4 LOS by Appr:B D B E AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 6.1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.570 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd. First St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 107 321 163 373 462 78 96 275 77 218 285 344 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 107 321 163 373 462 78 96 275 77 218 285 344 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 107 321 82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 321 82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 321 82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ******** ****Green Time: 8.3 10.4 10.4 14.5 16.6 16.6 8.9 17.8 17.8 15.3 24.2 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.57 0.31 0.57 0.51 0.09 0.43 0.57 0.09 0.57 0.43 0.00 Uniform Del: 28.9 27.7 26.6 24.9 23.2 20.8 28.3 22.8 19.9 24.4 17.6 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.1 1.4 1.6 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 31.1 29.1 27.3 26.1 23.7 20.9 29.6 24.4 20.0 26.5 18.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.1 29.1 27.3 26.1 23.7 20.9 29.6 24.4 20.0 26.5 18.1 0.0 LOS by Move: C C C C C C+ C C C+ C B- A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 4 2 5 5 1 3 6 1 5 5 0 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):1.044 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 44.0 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Uvas Park Dr. Miller Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.25 0.73 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.56 0.10 0.67 0.23 Final Sat.: 157 449 10 17 429 161 142 74 279 47 309 106 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: ******** ******** Delay/Veh: 71.7 71.7 71.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.7 71.7 71.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 LOS by Move: F F F D D D B B B B B B ApproachDel: 71.7 27.3 13.7 12.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 71.7 27.3 13.7 12.6 LOS by Appr:F D B B AllWayAvgQ: 10.8 10.8 10.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):60 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.421 Loss Time (sec): 6 Average Delay (sec/veh):9.2 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service:A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Princevalle St. Tenth St.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control:Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 1045 755 1750 1583 217 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.07 Crit Moves: ******** Green Time: 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.07 0.42 0.11 Uniform Del: 19.0 19.7 19.7 18.9 19.2 19.2 3.3 4.1 3.3 3.4 4.5 3.5 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 19.4 20.4 20.4 19.2 19.7 19.7 3.3 4.2 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.4 20.4 20.4 19.2 19.7 19.7 3.3 4.2 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6 LOS by Move: B- C+ C+ B- B- B- A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 3 3 2 2 2 0 3 0 1 5 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):1.138 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 64.7 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.09 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.39 0.00 Final Sat.: 55 0 588 0 0 0 0 565 635 410 261 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.51 xxxx 0.51 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 0.04 1.14 1.14 xxxx Crit Moves: ******** **** Delay/Veh: 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 8.4 100.5 100 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 8.4 100.5 100 0.0 LOS by Move: B * B * * * * B A F F * ApproachDel: 13.9 xxxxxx 11.3 100.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.9 xxxxxx 11.3 100.5 LOS by Appr:B *B F AllWayAvgQ: 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 17.2 17.2 17.2 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 25.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Princevalle St. Luchessa Ave.Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights:Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 93 65 413 0 0 671 107 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 72 0 93 65 413 0 0 671 107 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 72 0 93 65 413 0 0 671 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 72 0 93 65 413 0 0 671 107 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1268 xxxx 725 778 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 188 xxxx 429 848 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 177 xxxx 429 848 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.41 xxxx 0.22 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.8 xxxx 0.8 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 38.8 xxxx 15.7 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * E * C A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 25.8 xxxxxx xxxxxxApproachLOS: * D * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)******************************************************************************** Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):90 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.627 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.0 Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights:Ovl Ovl Ovl OvlMin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.26 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1327 473 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: ******** ******** Green Time: 29.2 31.2 56.9 8.4 10.4 20.9 10.5 12.7 41.9 25.8 27.9 36.3 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.63 0.44 0.63 0.57 0.27 0.57 0.63 0.48 Uniform Del: 25.8 20.8 6.6 37.7 38.0 29.6 37.9 36.1 14.7 27.4 26.6 19.9 IncremntDel: 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.9 0.8 6.1 2.9 0.2 1.6 2.3 0.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.0 20.9 6.7 38.4 40.8 30.4 43.9 39.0 14.9 28.9 28.8 20.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.0 20.9 6.7 38.4 40.8 30.4 43.9 39.0 14.9 28.9 28.8 20.4 LOS by Move: C C+ A D+ D C D D B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 10 3 2 1 5 5 5 5 4 8 9 8 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 11, 2022 11:38:16 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.466 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.0 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service:C+ ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 19 585 585 731 1715 46 139 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves:**** ************ Green Time: 13.9 26.7 26.7 7.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.52 0.63 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.63 Uniform Del: 22.6 16.7 17.7 28.6 20.1 20.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.5 25.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 22.6 17.5 19.5 28.8 20.5 20.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.9 28.9 28.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 22.6 17.5 19.5 28.8 20.5 20.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.9 28.9 28.9 LOS by Move: C+ B B- C C+ C+ C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 9 0 4 4 0 0 0 6 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Thu Apr 28, 2022 16:54:34 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.832 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.4 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.56 0.10 0.67 0.23 Final Sat.: 532 563 13 17 431 162 142 74 279 47 309 106 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.31 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: ******** ******** Delay/Veh: 12.3 31.3 31.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.3 31.3 31.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 LOS by Move: B D D D D D B B B B B B ApproachDel: 26.5 26.2 13.2 12.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 26.5 26.2 13.2 12.2 LOS by Appr:D D B B AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Thu Apr 28, 2022 17:05:31 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.6 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes:1 0 1 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| PCE Module: AutoPCE: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AdjVolume: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 274 710 404 113 MaxVolume: 1052 xxxxxx 982 1139 PedVolume:0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 1052 xxxxxx 982 1139 ApproachVol: 542 xxxxxx 372 597 ApproachV/C: 0.52 1.00 0.38 0.52 ApproachDel: 7.0 xxxxxx 5.9 6.6 ApproachLOS:A *A A Queue:3.0 xxxx 1.8 3.2 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 11, 2022 11:40:44 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):80 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.582 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.6 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R:4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 905 995 1798 29 73 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **************** Green Time: 7.0 16.9 16.9 11.8 21.8 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 29.2 29.2 29.2 Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.55 0.55 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.75 0.75 0.75 Uniform Del: 33.4 28.2 28.2 29.4 26.6 0.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 22.2 22.2 22.2 IncremntDel: 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 33.6 29.9 29.9 29.5 32.8 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 26.8 26.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 29.9 29.9 29.5 32.8 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 26.8 26.8 LOS by Move: C- C C C C- A A C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 6 0 11 0 0 1 1 13 13 13 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Thu Apr 28, 2022 16:57:47 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec):100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X):0.808 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.5 Optimal Cycle:0 Level Of Service:C ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights:Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 0.02 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.61 0.12 Final Sat.: 472 484 23 15 485 73 69 128 314 128 282 57 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.52 0.52 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.44 0.44 0.44 Crit Moves: ************ **** Delay/Veh: 12.0 15.9 15.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.2 14.2 14.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.0 15.9 15.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.2 14.2 14.2 LOS by Move: B C C D D D C C C B B B ApproachDel: 14.8 28.1 15.1 14.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 14.8 28.1 15.1 14.2 LOS by Appr:B D C B AllWayAvgQ: 0.3 0.9 0.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Thu Apr 28, 2022 17:07:08 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.9 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name:Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Yield Sign Lanes:1 0 1 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| PCE Module: AutoPCE: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 TruckPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ComboPCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BicyclePCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AdjVolume: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours << CircVolume: 180 792 467 28 MaxVolume: 1103 xxxxxx 948 1185 PedVolume:0 0 0 0 AdjMaxVol: 1103 xxxxxx 948 1185 ApproachVol: 325 xxxxxx 204 764 ApproachV/C: 0.29 1.00 0.22 0.64 ApproachDel: 4.6 xxxxxx 4.8 8.4 ApproachLOS:A *A A Queue:1.2 xxxx 0.8 5.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL Attachment C: Trip Generation  Comparison Table for General Office  and Commercial Land Uses  Trip Generation Comparison Table for General Office and Commercial Land Uses CPB Land Use Size ITE Code Trip Generation1 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Fitted Curve Estimate General Office [A] 4,000 sq. ft 710 47 30 5 Commercial [B] 4,000 sq. ft 820 674 154 50 2022 CPB Traffic Study Estimate2 General Office [C] 39 5 5 Commercial [D] 151 4 15 Difference General Office [E] = [A] - [C] 8 25 0 Commercial [F] = [B] - [D] 523 150 35 Notes: 1. Use Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition rates. 2. From Attachment 1 of Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022. Average rates are used for non- residential land use. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023. ffi Gmail Glen Loma Ranch Tentative Map: October Hearing 5 messages Melissa Durkin <Melissa,Durkin@ci.gi[roy.ca.us> To: "Augie Dent (augie.dent@gmail.com)" <augie.dent@gmail.com> Augie Dent <augie.dent@gmail.com> Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:09 AM Cc: Sha-ron Goei`<S-haron.G65i@ci.gilroy.(;a.uS>, Jon Biggs <Jon.Biggs@ci.gilroy.ca.us>, Tim Filice <tfilice@glenloma.com> Hi, Augie: Jon is still waiting for the proposal from EMC to prepare an Addendum EIR for Glen Loma Ranch. I don't know when he willl receive the proposal, but there would not be enough time to complete the addendum between now and the October planning commission hearing date. lf this tentative map is going to the October planning commission meeting,I will need to send the notice to the newspaper next week. Please confirm whether you want to keep this map on the October hearing date. If not, please request a continuance in accordance with the normal protocol. Thanks, Melissa Durkin Planner 11 Direct 408.846.02521 melissa.durkin@cityofgilroy.org Main 408.846.0440 I www.cityofgilroy.org 7351 Rosanna Street I Gilroy I CA 95020 Augie Dent <augie.dent@gmail.com> To: John Filice <filicej@glenloma.com> Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 2:30 PM ffi Gmai!Augie Dent <augie.dent@gmail.com> RE: EXTERNAL -Re: Glen L{)rna Ranch Tentative Map: January Hearing 13 messages Melissa Durkin <Melissa,Durkin@ci.gilroy.ca.us> To: Augje Dent <augie.dent@gmail.com> Cc: Sharon Goei <Sharon.Goei@ci.gilroy.ca.us> Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:31 PM Once the peer review has been completed, we would need to incorporate the traffic analysis into the addendum EIR. EMC Planning Group, lnc. would prepare the addendum EIR. They have not provided me with a schedule because they need to evaluate their other work commitments once we are ready to move forward with the addendum. If I had to guess,I would speculate that we would be ready to move forward to a hearing in about three to four months, so probably in the March/April time frame. From: Augie Dent <augie.dent@gmajj.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 2:47 PM To: Melissa Durkin <Melissa.Durkin@ci.gilroy.ca.us> Cc: Sharon Goei <Sharon.Goei@ci.gilrcy.c-a.us> Subject: EXTERNAL -Re: Glen Loma F`anch Tentative Map: January Hearing CAUTION: This email originated from an Extemal Source. please use properjudgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Hi Melissa I understand that the peer review will not be ready in time to proceed to Jan PC, Can you give me some guidance as to a continuance date that would be more comfortable based on the peer review timing? Thanks Augie On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:35 PM Melis`sa Durkin <Melissa.Durkin@ci.gilroy.ca.ijs> wrote: Hi, Augie, l'm checking in to see if you still want this item to go to the January 18 planning commission hearing. Fehr & Fleers is working on the traffic impact analysis, but it won't be complete in time for he January hearing. Please let me know by [)ecember 8, 2023 if you want this item to be scheduled for the January 18, 2024 planning commission hearing. If I don't hear from you by December 8,I will schedule this item for the January 18 hearing. lf you want a continuance, please specify the dates and the required waivers of time. Thanks, Melissa Durkin Planner 11 Direct 408.846.02521 melissa.durkin@cityofgilroy.org Main 408.846.0440 I wwv\i.cityofgilroy.org 7351 Rosanna Street I Gilroy I CA 95020 Cc: Sharon Goei <Sharon.Goei@ci.gilroy.ca.us>, Cindy Mccormick <Cindy.Mccormick@ci.gilroy.ca.us>, Andy Faber <andy.faber@berliner.com>, Jolie Houston <jolie.houston@berliner.com> Hi, Augie: Since the addendum is not complete, if we go to hearing in January, we will process the tentative map using the certified EIR and all adopted mitigation measures. lf you proceed to planning commission and city council hearings prior to completion of the addendum EIR, and subsequently want to complete the addendum EIR and apply revised mitigation measures to the project, you would need to file a new tentative map application. We could process a revised tentative map after completion of the addendum EIR and go through the tentative map hearing process again. Please let me know by tomorrow whether you want to go to the planning commission in January or whether you would like to continue the application. If you want to continue the application, please specify a hearing date and agree to waive permit streamlining and subdivision map act time frames for the period of the continuance. Thanks, Melissa [Quoted text hidden] Docusign Envelope lD: 45948363-8EA34657-A5CF-6CA664195516 May 26, 2023 Community Development sharon Goei Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0440 Fax: (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofallroy.ora DIRECTOR Tim Filice Glen Loma Group/Filice Family Estate 7888 Wren Avenue, Suite [)143 Gilroy, CA 95020 Via Electronic Mail (tfilice@glenloma.com) and Certified Mail SuBJECT: TM 20-05 (# 20090053), Request for public Hearing continuance Dear Mr. Filice, Tentative map application l-M 20-05 was originally scheduled for a planning commission hearing on August 19, 202`1. At Glen Loma Group's request, city staff has continued the hearing date several times. With each extension request, Glen Loma Group has agreed to waive all applicable time limits under the Subdivision Map Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, and the Gilroy City Code, as well as any other applicable time limits. On May 5, 2023, the Gilroy planning division received an email request to again continue the planning commission hearing date for this application; the current request would continue the hearing from June 1, 2023 to September 7, 2023. Planning staff supports the proposed tentative map and has prepared a staff report recommending approval of the application subject to certain findings and conditions; the conditions include implementing adopted CEQA mitigation measures. It is my uances js to alloiffiffito ina ado Fffifigrn Tr~€.,.±:a:*r=.`^`_±~dFs3_~± that an addendum :#%##ti:that the reason for re mentatjon shc)wing tha ;TIE_jf€,:;{aerf§„.p{r+oj`9_g^±=9tpatg`~.P_Q¥_±g.±`§caqLmjEj understandin prepare_dQcuffiEa5fifEFaFasffiagacoeffian€€6ffiifflg'fe`ih^.g staff has advised Glen EffigeE8km±9j#HB<§': Loma resentatives be the DroDer method to eliminate the Loma Group representatives were provided a scope of work and cost-to p`rEija-re the addendum EIR. To date the city has not received the required funds from Glen Loma GroiLlp to begin preparation of the addendum EIR. Docusign Envelope lD: 45948363-8EA34657-A5CF-6CA664195516 TM 20-05 (# 20090053) Canyon Creek, Rocky Knol'l and Malvasia 11 Neighborhoods Gilroy City Code section 21.41 (f) allows extension of tentative map time limits under the following circumstances, "The time limit of sixfty (60) days for acting on the tentative map may be extended by mutual consent of the subdivider and the planning commission or secretary to the planning commission. If mutual consent cannot be reached, the time limit may be automatically extended to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commissicin." ln my role as secretary to the planning commission, I agree to extend the hearing date for tentative map application TM 20-05 to the September 7, 2023 planning commission meeting. This extension request is being granted expressly in reference to Glen Loma Group's agreement to waive all applicable time limits under the Subdivision Map Act, the Permit Streamlining Act:, the Gilroy City Code and any other applicable time limits. We will hold the public hearing on September 7, 2023. If you are not ready to proceed with the hearing on this date, you have the option of abandoning the application and refiling for a new tentative map application when you are ready to move forward. Should you have any quest:ions about this letter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 846-0467 or sharon.goei@cityofgilroy.org, or Melissa Durkin at (408) 846-0252 or melissa.durkin@cityofgilroy.org. Respectfully, S2caAco~ ifeeiI Sharon Goei Community Development Director cc: Andrew L. Faber, Ci.[yAttorney Augie Dent, Glen Loma Group Ej# DLwh Melissa Durkin Planner 11 1 Cindy McCormick From:Augie Dent <augie.dent@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 22, 2024 4:45 PM To:Cindy McCormick Cc:Jimmy Forbis; Sharon Goei; Andy Faber; John Filice; tfilice@glenloma.com; Arminta Jensen; Jack Kent Subject:EXTERNAL - Re: Glen Loma Tentative Map next steps Attachments:Response to City of Gilroy 4.18.24 email.pdf; Sharon Goei 5.26.23.pdf; GLR CityofGilroyPeerReview.pdf; Melissa Durkin 12.14.23.pdf; draft EIR addendum #2.pdf; Melissa Durkin email correspondence.pdf Hi Cindy Please find GLC's memo and supporting docs in response to your 4/18/24 email attached below. Thanks Augie On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:42 PM Cindy McCormick <Cindy.McCormick@ci.gilroy.ca.us> wrote: Thank you all for your time today. Here is the information being presented to the Planning Commission on May 2nd and eventually the City Council. Cindy Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Phasing: The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed three phases of development. Many of the EIR mitigation measures are tied to the issuance of building permits within each phase. The EIR included a phasing exhibit (figure 10) which illustrates the geographic location of each phase. EIR Phase 1, located east of Tenth Street, would connect Luchessa Avenue between Greenfield Drive and Miller Avenue, and Tenth Street between Santa Teresa Boulevard and just north of Luchessa Avenue. EIR Phase 2 is located northwest of the preserved natural open space area and includes Club Drive. EIR Phase 3, located west of Tenth Street, includes Merlot Drive and what is now the connection of West Luchessa Avenue between Tenth Street and Santa Teresa Boulevard (at Ballybunion Drive). The EIR phasing exhibit (figure 10) illustrated the following neighborhoods within each phase. Phase 1 included Cabernet, Petite Sirah, Vista Bella, Mataro, Luchessa, and The Grove. Phase 2 included Home Ranch, McCutchin Creek, Palomino, and Olive Grove (owned and reserved by GUSD). Phase 3 included Wild Chestnut, Montonico, Nebbiolo, The Glen, CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 Malvasia, Town Center (R4), Town Center (Sr. Housing), Canyon Creek, and Rocky Knoll. The “Cabernet” neighborhood, initially planned for 53 units, was developed with the Las Animas Elementary School, while the Malvasia and Palomino neighborhoods were split into separate tentative map applications (Malvasia I & II, Palomino I & II). The Nebbiolo neighborhood was also split into two architectural and site review applications. The unit counts within each EIR phase are herein noted, along with the page number from the EIR where the information can be found. Note that the unit counts add up to 1,690 units (3 units fewer than the Specific Plan mid-point forecast). Phase 1 included 405 detached and 59 attached homes (Page 2-111). Phase 2 included 167 single-family homes, 197 townhomes, 177 apartments, 81,500 square feet of retail and office space, and a 30,000 square-foot fire station (Page 2- 112). Phase 3 included 221 single-family homes, 314 townhomes, a 150-unit senior housing complex, and 74,000 square feet of additional commercial space within the town center (Page 2-114). EIR Phases 1 and 2 comprise 1,005 units while EIR Phase 3 comprises 685 units, for a total of 1,690 units. The City has approved tentative maps for 1,083 units, with 996 of those units either built or issued building permits for construction. As of April 10, 2024, the City has issued building permits for a total of 996 units for the following neighborhoods:  EIR Phase 1: Vista Bella (146 units), Petite Sirah (77 units), Mataro (51 units), Luchessa (49 units), and The Grove (64 units) for a total of 387 units.  EIR Phase 2: Home Ranch (52 units), Palomino (2 units) and McCutchin Creek (2 units) for a total of 56 units.  EIR Phase 3: Wild Chestnut (43 units), Montonico (84 units), Town Center BMR Apartments (158 units), Town Center Townhomes (124[1] units), The Glen (23 units), Malvasia (46 units), and Nebbiolo (75 units) for a total of 553 units. As provided above, the City has issued building permits for 996 units. The City anticipates issuing building permits for another 86 units within the approved tentative maps for Nebbiolo (27 units), Palomino (35 units) and McCutchin Creek (24 units). This would be bring the total count to 1,082 units, noting that one fewer unit was built in the Town Center Townhome development than permitted by the tentative map. The proposed tentative map (TM 20-05) for the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods would add 123 units towards Phase 3 build out of the Specific Plan, for a total of 1,205 units. The 2005 Glen Loma Specific Plan EIR included an analysis for 1,690 units; therefore, the remaining units that could be built pursuant to the EIR is 485 units. This includes an anticipated 192 units in the Olive Grove neighborhood (Phase 1), a property that is owned by, and being held in reserve by, the Gilroy Unified School District. Specific Plan build out also includes 6.8 acres of land set aside for commercial uses and 1.5 acres of land for the fire station. The applicant has indicated they intend to reduce the overall development of Glen Loma, including elimination of the commercial uses; however no formal documentation of this reduced development has been submitted. Therefore, the City is processing the proposed Tentative Map 20-05 in the same manner as previous tentative maps. [1] Tentative Map 17-01 included approval for 125 units; however only 124 townhome units were built. 3 [1] Tentative Map 17-01 included approval for 125 units; however only 124 townhome units were built. April 22, 2024 To: Cindy McCormick – City of Gilroy From: Augie Dent – Glen Loma Corporation Re: Glen Loma Ranch Dear Cindy I am writing with Glen Loma Corp’s response to your email of 4/18/24 advising us of additional information you intend to present to the Planning Commission in connection with TM 20-05. Please include this memo and attachments as part of the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Your assertion that the original Glen Loma Ranch EIR identifies 1005 permits as the trigger point to require Phase 3 traffic improvements is incorrect, misleading and its eleventh hour timing is indicative of the City of Gilroy’s ongoing pattern of obstruction with respect to Glen Loma Ranch. Project mitigations are a function of project impacts from all land uses; not just the residential unit count. Your email neglects to mention that 81,500 square feet of commercial space was included in the land uses analyzed for Phases 1 & 2 in the original 2005 EIR. Accounting for the fact that the commercial space assumed in the original traffic analysis has not been constructed, the allowable number of Phase 1 + Phase 2 residential units exceeds 1450. As the lead staff person on this item, you must be well aware, that the City is in the midst of processing GLR EIR Addendum #2 which clearly demonstrates that, even at 1467 residential units Glen Loma Ranch will not exceed Phase 1 + Phase 2 traffic impacts and there is no nexus to justify the imposition of Phase 3 traffic mitigations on TM 20-05. It is hard to imagine how, in good faith, this topic could be introduced without a discussion of Addendum #2. Addendum #2 Starting in 2018, at the direction of City Staff and funded by Glen Loma Corporation, the City’s traffic engineer for the original 2005 project EIR (Keith Higgins) prepared numerous studies evaluating traffic impacts in light of the fact that Glen Loma Ranch would build-out at lower than the maximum intensity allowed under the Specific Plan. This protracted process culminated in Higgins’ supplemental analysis letters of May and June 2022. These letters concluded that the project could accommodate a total of 1467 residential units plus 12,000 square feet of commercial uses without generating impacts that would trigger traffic improvements identified for Phase 3 in the original EIR. About a year later, in May 2023 the City (see attached Sharon Goei letter dated May 26, 2023) informed GLC that an Addendum would be required to formally document Higgins’ findings, and suggested continuing hearings on TM 20-05 to allow time for the Addendum to be completed. Around this same time, in support of the proposed Addendum, the City engaged the firm of Fehr & Peers to conduct a peer review of Higgins’ analysis. Fehr & Peers report was delivered in December 2023 (copy attached including Higgins’ letters). Each and every one of Higgins’ conclusions was validated. With Higgins’ reports, and Fehr & Peers affirmation of Higgins in hand; the City required GLC to advance funds necessary for EMC to prepare Addendum #2 (see attached Melissa Durkin letter dated December 14, 2023). GLC made the requested payment to the City and the draft Addendum was completed in February 2024 (Draft Addendum attached). This is where the addendum process has inexplicably stopped. The meaning of Sharon Goei’s 5/26/23 letter and subsequent extensive email communication with Melissa Durkin (see attached Melissa Durkin email correspondence) is unmistakable. Addendum #2 was always clearly intended to accompany TM 20-05. Now that the Addendum is finally ready for approval, City staff has arbitrarily refused to complete the process. Hearing Continuance I understand that, during their 4/4/24 meeting, Planning Commissioners expressed concern over the number of times Tentative Map 20-05 has been continued. GLC shares these concerns and would agree that the project has been burdened with inordinate delays. A review of the Goei/Durkin letters and emails referenced above should make clear to all that these continuances were undertaken at the urging of City Staff so that Addendum #2 could be completed and heard along with the TM. GLC still agrees that this is the correct approach and formally demands that the City immediately proceed to approve Addendum #2 in connection with TM 20-05. We request continuance to the June 2024 Planning Commission so that this can be accomplished. Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 | Fax: (408) 846-0429 cityofgilroy.org |planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org Sharon Goei DIRECTOR DATE: May 2, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cindy McCormick, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Zoning text amendments to implement various programs of the Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Recommend that the City Council, based on its independent analysis, find that approval of Zoning Amendment Z 24-0001 is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) where it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to implement the Gilroy 2023- 2031 Housing Element would not result in a significant environmental effect; and b) Recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance, approving Zoning Amendment Z 24-0001, amending the Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XI (Residential Use Tables) in conformance with the City of Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Gilroy Planning Division is proposing amendments to Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XI (Residential Use Tables) as necessary to implement various programs of the Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element, including Program A-3 (By- Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” RHNA Sites), Program A-10 (Facilitate Missing Middle / Middle Income Housing), Program E-2 (Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate Single Room Occupancy Units), Program E-3 (Emergency Shelter Standards), Program E-5 (Incentivize Micro Units), Program E-8 (Consistency with the Employee Housing Act), Program E-10 (Development and Rehabilitation of Housing for Persons with Disabilities), and Program E-13 (Permanent Supportive Housing). DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Background: On May 1, 2023, the City of Gilroy City Council adopted the Gilroy 2023- 2031 Housing Element. When the Housing Element was adopted, the City intended to implement several of the housing programs by the end of the 2023 calendar year as part of the 2023 comprehensive zoning update. However, the comprehensive zoning update has been delayed due to limited staffing resources. Rather than wait for the comprehensive update, City staff has prepared amendments to Gilroy City Code Chapter 2 1 5 8 3 30 (Zoning), Article XI (Residential Use Tables) to implement various programs of the Housing Element. Additional amendments planned for the comprehensive update being presented to the Planning Commission and City Council beginning this summer will further implement programs from the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: The City of Gilroy Planning Division has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Zoning Amendment (“Project”) would have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3), the Project is exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Review: Pursuant to City Code Section 30.52.40, the Planning Commission may recommend approval, recommend modifications, or deny the proposed ordinance amendment. In the case of a recommendation of approval, the planning commission shall make findings demonstrating that the amendment is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan goals and policies. The recommended text amendment will be scheduled for a City Council hearing. Pursuant to Section 30.52.60, the City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove a proposed ordinance amendment. The action by the City Council shall be final and conclusive. The following analysis demonstrates that the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan goals and policies. Existing City Code: The Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool by which the city implements the policies of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance is, among other purposes, intended to guide and regulate each development in accordance with the general plan and the objectives and standards set forth therein. The Gilroy City Code Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XI (Residential Use Tables) currently regulates permitted and conditional uses in the City’s residential zoning districts. Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment is necessary to implement the Gilroy 2040 General Plan and Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element Programs A-3, A-10, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-8, E-10, and E- 13. General Plan Guiding Principles. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes eight (8) guiding principles, including principle #8 (Support Housing Options) to encourage a mix of housing types to create diverse neighborhoods that meet the needs of all Gilroyans, and to promote the building, retention, and renovation of quality housing for all incomes, ages, and abilities. General Plan Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs: The Gilroy 2023-2031 3 1 5 8 3 Housing Element goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives are designed to help ensure housing opportunities for all existing and future residents of the community. General Plan / Housing Element Consistency: The proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Land Use Goal LU 3 to provide a variety of housing types that offer choices for Gilroy residents and create complete, livable neighborhoods; Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element Goal 1 (Housing Production) to provide adequate residential sites to accommodate projected housing needs and encourage the production of a variety of housing types; Housing Element Goal 2 (Removal of Government Constraints) to remove or reduce governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing where feasible and legally permissible; and Housing Element Goal 5 (Special Housing Needs) to increase access to decent and suitable housing for Gilroy residents with special housing needs. The following table provides a summary of the proposed amendments provided in the attached draft Ordinance. Draft Ordinance Summary Article XI Residential Use Table Section 30.11.10(c) Residential Use Table was amended as follows: To ensure that important footnotes are not overlooked by an applicant, several of the footnotes are now referenced under one new general footnote (1) and moved into a new section (32.11.15). Agriculture footnote #5 was removed since a CUP is not needed for all new uses given agriculture is currently listed as a permitted use in the A1 and RR zoning districts. Home Occupation was moved down to the residential category since home occupations are a secondary use of a residence, while commercial uses are not intended to be a primary use of a residence. The footnote “D” and “2” were combined into one footnote (4). Emergency Shelter was moved to the housing / residential category in line with the purpose of an emergency shelter as “housing” for homeless persons. The footnote for Private Neighborhood Park, Recreation Facility was moved to the first column for easier reference and also changed from “4” to “2” given the new footnote numbering scheme. Supportive and Transitional Housing was moved to the housing / residential category in line with its purpose as “housing”. The corresponding footnote was moved into the new Specific Housing Use Types section 32.11.15 for easier reference. Accessory Dwelling Units are now listed as a permitted use in the A-1 zone in accordance with state law, since residential uses are an allowed use in the A1 zone. 4 1 5 8 3 Condominiums and Townhomes were combined since the permitted zones are the same. The footnote for Duplex was moved to the new Specific Housing Use Types section for easier reference. A new residential use type “efficiency / micro unit” was added to implement Housing Element Program E-5 (Incentivize Micro Units). A new residential use type “Employee / Agricultural Worker Housing” was added to implement Housing Element Program E-8 (Consistency with the Employee Housing Act). Residential Care Homes were combined into one category in compliance with state law regarding the number of residents and to implement Program E-10 (Development and Rehabilitation of Housing for Persons with Disabilities). A new residential use type Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) was added to implement Program E-2 (Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate Single Room Occupancy Units). Footnotes The corresponding footnote text for “X”, “C”, and “T” were modified for consistency. Footnotes ”D” and “2” were combined into new footnote “4” regarding home occupations. Footnotes “1, 3, 6, and 7” are now combined as footnote “1” and now referenced in the new Specific Housing Use Types section for easier reference. Footnote “4” is now footnote “2” given the new footnote numbering scheme. Footnote “5” is not applicable since agriculture is currently listed as a permitted use in the A1 and RR zoning districts. A new footnote “3” is proposed to implement program B-7, clarifying that the residential portions of mixed-use projects are not subject to any FAR restrictions. A new section, 32.11.15 Specific Housing Use Types was added to ensure that important footnotes are not overlooked by an applicant. This new section also introduces new standards to implement the Housing Element. (a) Accessory Dwelling Unit(s). Moved here from the footnotes section. (b) Emergency Shelter. Moved here from the footnotes section. Implements Program E-3 (Emergency Shelter Standards) in compliance with state law. (c) Efficiency / Micro Unit. New text to implement Program E-5 (Incentivize Micro Units) and comply with state law. 5 1 5 8 3 (d) Employee / Agricultural Worker Housing. New text to implement Program E-8 (Consistency with the Employee Housing Act) and comply with state law. (e) Housing Element Opportunity Sites. New text was added here to implement Program B-7 (Zoning Ordinance Update) regarding demolished residential units on a RHNA opportunity site, consistent with state law. New text was also added here to implement Program A-3 (By-Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reused” RHNA Sites) and comply with state law. (f) Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex Housing. New text to implement Program A-10 (Facilitate Missing Middle / Middle Income Housing). (g) Residential Care Homes. New text to implement Program E-10 (Development and Rehabilitation of Housing for Persons with Disabilities) and comply with state law. (h) Single-Room Occupancy. New text to implement Program E-2 (Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate Single Room Occupancy Units). (i) Supportive and Transitional Housing. New text to implement Program E-13 (Permanent Supportive Housing) and comply with state law. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft changes to City Code. Alternatively, the Planning Commission can deny the zoning amendment or recommend modifications to the draft Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 30.52.40, a Planning Commission denial requires adoption of a Resolution. However, this is not recommended since the proposed amendments implement various programs of the City’s adopted and certified Housing Element. The recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. A Council hearing date is tentatively scheduled for May 20, 2024. If denied by the Council, the decision would be final. If approved by the Council, the Ordinance would take effect 30 days following the second reading of the Ordinance, tentatively scheduled for June 3, 2024. PUBLIC NOTICING: A notice of the May 2, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing was advertised in the Gilroy Dispatch on Friday, April 19, 2024 (no less than 10 days prior to the meeting). The Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City’s webpage. No public comments have been received on the proposed amendment, as of the writing of this staff report. APPEAL PROCEDURE: If the planning commission denies the proposed zoning amendment, the denial shall be final and conclusive unless within twenty (20) days following the adoption of the 6 1 5 8 3 resolution by the planning commission, an appeal in writing is filed with the clerk of the city council. Appeal forms may be obtained from the City Clerk and must be submitted with the appropriate fee before the end of the appeal period. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A) Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT “A” ORDINANCE 2024-XX Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XI is hereby modified as follows (where new text is indicated in bold type and deleted text is crossed out): (c) Residential Use Table A1 RR R1 R2 R3 R4 RH ND Accessory Building X X X X X X X * Temporary Building X X X X X X X * Agricultural Uses Agriculture X X C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 * Agriculture X X C C C C C * Animal Husbandry C C * Animal Services * Animal Boarding X X * Veterinary Hospital X X * Commercial Uses Bed/Breakfast Establishment (1—2 Rooms)C C C C C C * Boarding or Rooming House X C C C C C * Day Care Center C C C C C C * Family Day Care Home X X X X X X * Home Occupation2 D D D D D D * Landscape Nursery C * Sale of Farm Products (Grown on Site)X C * Subdivision Sales Office T T T T T * Public and Semi-Public Uses Community Garden X X X X X X * Emergency Shelter7 C C C C C X C * Golf Course or Country Club C C C C C C * Hospital C C * Neighborhood Bazaar T T T T T * Open Space (Recreational)X X X X X X * Private Neighborhood Park, Recreation Facility C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 * Page 2 of 5 A1 RR R1 R2 R3 R4 RH ND Private Neighborhood Park, Recreation Facility (2)C C C C C C * Publicly Owned Building or Facility X X X X X X * Religious Institution X X X X X X * Schools (Private ≤ 12 Students or Public)X X X X X X * Schools (Private > 12 Students)C C C C C C * Supportive and Transitional Housing6 X X X X X X X * Housing / Residential Uses (3) Accessory Dwelling Unit1 X X X X X X * Accessory Dwelling Unit (1)X X X X X X X * Condominiums / Townhomes X X X * Duplex X3 X X X * Duplex (1)X X X X X * Efficiency / Micro Unit (1)X X X X X X X Emergency Shelter (1)C C C C C X C * Employee / Agricultural Worker Housing (1)X X X X X X X * Home Occupation (2)X X X X X X X * Mobile Home Park C C X X * Multiple-Family Building (3 or more units)X X * Residential Care Homes (More Than 6 Residents)C C C C C C * Residential Care Homes (Up to and Including 6 Residents)X X X X X X * Residential Care Homes (1)X X X X X X X * Single-Family Dwelling or Modular Home X8 X X X X X X * Single-Family Dwelling or Modular Home (4)X3 X X X X X X * Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) (1)X * Supportive and Transitional Housing (1)X X X X X X X * Townhouse X X X * X = Unconditionally permitted. C = Permitted only with conditional use permit granted by planning commission. D = Permitted subject to the approval of the planning manager. T = Temporary use—see Article XLVII. * = Refer to the master plan or specific plan adopted for the neighborhood district area in which the property is located. 1 Accessory dwelling unit(s) and/or junior accessory dwelling units may be allowed subject to Page 3 of 5 compliance with the regulations prescribed in Article LIV. 2 Permitted only if the regulations of Article XL are met. 3 A duplex dwelling is permitted when all of the following conditions are met: (a) The duplex dwelling shall be located on a corner lot only; and (b) The corner lot shall have a minimum area of eight thousand (8,000) square feet and be so designated for a duplex unit on a tentative and final map; and (c) The duplex shall not increase the overall density within any given land subdivision beyond the maximum of seven and one-fourth (7 1/4) dwelling units per net acre. 4 Conditional use permit required unless otherwise allowed through an approved planned unit development. 5 Planning commission approval of a conditional use permit is required for all new agricultural uses. 6 Supportive and/or transitional housing that serves more than six (6) individuals, provides on- site services and is licensed by the state as a group home shall only be allowed upon the granting of a conditional use permit. 7 Emergency shelters shall be subject to the performance standards listed in section 30.41.32. Emergency shelters shall be permitted by right in the R4 zone district and areas designated mixed use (MU) on the Gilroy 2040 general plan land use diagram. 8 One (1) residential dwelling unit may be permitted on an A1 zoned parcel that has a minimum size of twenty (20) acres or more. Subdivision of land for further development is not permitted without rezoning to another zoning district that implements the general plan land use map. X = Principally permitted (See Article L for related planning application requirements). C = Subject to the approval of a conditional use permit (see Article L, Section 30.50.30) T = Subject to the approval of a temporary use permit (see Article XLVII). * = Refer to the master plan or specific plan adopted for the neighborhood district area in which the property is located. (1) See Section 32.11.15 (Specific Housing Use Types) (2) A private neighborhood park or recreation facility is subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit granted by the planning commission, unless otherwise allowed through an approved planned unit development. (3) For mixed-use projects, the residential portion shall comply with the density standards and the non-residential portion shall comply with the FAR requirements. (4) A home occupation shall meet the requirements of Article XL and shall be subject to approval of a Zoning Clearance by the Planning Manager or designee. 32.11.15 Specific Housing Use Types (a) Accessory Dwelling Unit(s). Accessory dwelling unit(s) and/or junior accessory dwelling units are permitted subject to compliance with the regulations prescribed in Article LIV. (b) Emergency Shelter. Emergency shelters shall be subject to the performance standards listed in Article XLI, section 30.41.32. Emergency shelters shall be permitted by right in the R4 zone district and areas designated mixed use (MU) on the Gilroy 2040 general plan land Page 4 of 5 use diagram. (c) Efficiency Dwelling / Micro Unit. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, there shall be no limit on the number of efficiency units, whose meaning is as specified in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Building Code, on property located within one-half mile of public transit or where there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the efficiency unit. Any requirements related to density, setbacks, lot coverage, or height restrictions are not considered a limit on the number of efficiency units. (d) Employee / Agricultural Worker Housing. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, employee housing for six or fewer persons will be treated as a single-family structure and residential use, subject to the same density requirements, regulations, and objective standards that apply to other single-family dwellings in the same zone (A1, RR, R1). Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, employee housing consisting of 36 or fewer beds in group quarters, or 12 or fewer units designed for use by a single family or household will be treated as an agricultural use, subject to the same density requirements, regulations, and objective standards that apply to other agricultural activity in the same zone (R2, R3, R4, RH, ND). (e) Housing Element Opportunity Sites. Development projects on property identified in the Gilroy 2023-2031 Housing Element RHNA Opportunity Sites Inventory shall include replacement units, subject to the requirements of Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2.(c), a non-vacant site that has been identified as a housing opportunity site in a prior Housing Element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive Housing Element planning periods shall be allowed residential use by right (with approval of a building permit) for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2.(i), the development shall comply with the City of Gilroy’s objective development and design standards and a proposed subdivision of the property shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, City ordinances implementing the Subdivision Map Act. (f) Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex Housing. A duplex is permitted on a corner parcel that is at least 8,000 square feet in size in the R1 Zoning District. A triplex or fourplex development is permitted on a corner parcel in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts when such development is proposed in lieu of an ADU and/or JADU, the project complies with adopted objective design standards, the lot area is at least 8,000 square feet, and the lot was created prior to May 1, 2023. (g) Residential Care Homes. Residential care homes (also known as group homes) are subject only to the density requirements, regulations, and objective standards that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type (e.g., single-family or multi-family) in the same zone, with no additional requirements based solely on the number of units provided, other than density requirements. (h) Single-Room Occupancy. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing is subject to the same restrictions and objective standards that apply to multi-family dwellings within the Page 5 of 5 same zone. SRO Housing means a structure that provides living units that have separate sleeping areas and some combination of shared bath or toilet facilities. The structure may or may not have separate or shared cooking facilities for the residents. SRO includes structures commonly called residential hotels or rooming houses. (i) Supportive and Transitional Housing. Supportive and transitional housing is permitted in all residential zones subject only to those restrictions and objective standards that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type (e.g., single-family or multi-family) in the same zone, when such housing meets the criteria listed in Government Code Section 65651. Parking is not required for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within one-half mile of a public transit stop. Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofgilroy.org TO:Planning Commission FROM:Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician DATE:May 2, 2024 SUBJECT:Planning Division Staff Approvals In conformance with Gilroy Municipal Code Sections 30.50.20(b) and 30.50.46, the following table lists all Minor Deviation approvals and all Architectural and Site approval/denial actions taken by the Planning Division since the last report was provided to the Planning Commission at its April 4, 2024 meeting.i APPROVED PROJECT #LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION None DENIED PROJECT #LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION None AS = Architectural and Site Review VMD = Minor Deviation The current status of other planning projects is available online at: https://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects i Submitted in conformance with Gilroy Municipal Code Sections 30.50.20(b) and 30.50.46