The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-08-16 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Packet August 13, 2021 3:55 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR Marie Blankley COUNCIL MEMBERS Rebeca Armendariz Dion Bracco Zach Hilton Peter Leroe-Muñoz Carol Marques Fred Tovar CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF GILROY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 7351 ROSANNA STREET GILROY, CA 95020 REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org. THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus the City Council is conducting this meeting by web conference and will be offering alternative options for public participation. You are encouraged to watch the City Council meeting live on the City of Gilroy’s website at www.cityofgilroy.org or on Cable Channel 17. To view from the website, select the City Council Meetings section on the home page. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. DURING THE MEETING: TO PROVIDE VERBAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AN AGENDA ITEM DURING THIS MEETING, LOG INTO THE ZOOM MEETING AND ENTER THE PASSCODE, OR CALL THE PHONE NUMBER LISTED HERE AND ENTER THE MEETING ID AND PASSWORD. When the Mayor announces the item which you wish to speak on, press *9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. When called to speak, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes, or such other time as the Mayor may decide, consistent with the time limit for all other speakers for the particular agenda item. COMMENTS MAY ALSO BE EMAILED TO THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE AT cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org, OR MAILED TO THE GILROY CITY CLERKS OFFICE AT CITY HALL 7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA. 95020, PRIOR TO THE MEETING START, TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MEETING RECORD. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Governors Order N -29-20, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 2 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204. If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be Zoom Log In https://rb.gy/bxd9s0 or Call: 1 (669) 900-6833 Meeting ID: 846 4599 8921 Passcode: 259829 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 08/16/2021 Page2 limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hear ing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body o f 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 City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. 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 I. OPENING A. Call to Order 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Invocation 3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda 4. Roll Call B. Orders of the Day C. Employee Introductions II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations 1. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 08/16/2021 Page3 PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO: cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org, (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public members for Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not on the agenda” will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.) City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 08/16/2021 Page4 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Bracco – Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, Street Naming Committee, URM Task Force Sub-committee Council Member Armendariz – ABAG (Alternate), CalTrain Policy Group, Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board (alternate), Historic Heritage Committee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (Alternate), Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility (Alternate) Council Member Marques - Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board, Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Historic Heritage Committee (Alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board (alternate), South County Regional Wastewater Authority (Alternate), URM Task Force Sub-Committee Council Member Hilton – Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County United for Health, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board Council Member Tovar – Economic Development Corporation Board, Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission, Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board, Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission, Santa Clara Co. Library JPA (alternate), SCVWD Water Commission (alternate), South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors (alternate), Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Youth Task Force, SCVWD Water Commission, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team (alternate), VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA South County City Group, VTA Policy Advisory Committee Mayor Blankley - Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of Directors, Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Gilroy Sister Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, VTA Board of Directors Alternate, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, VTA South County City Group V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE) All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 08/16/2021 Page5 A. Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project No. 21-PW-264 and Approval of a Final Contract with Balch Petroleum Contractors & Builders, Inc in the Amount of $171,783.46 B. Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access Rights (Abutters Rights) C. 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Approval of Single Source Contract in the Amount of $196,007 with Stryker Emergency Care for the Purchase of Seven (7) LifePack 15 Monitor/Defibrillators, Including a Discounted 4-year Maintenance Agreement. 1. Staff Report: Jennifer Fortino, Management Analyst 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Award a single source contract to Stryker Emergency Care in the amount of $196,007 for the purchase of seven (7) LifePack 15 Monitors/Defibrillators, including a discounted 4-year maintenance agreement, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Conduct a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) Public Hearing and Approval of the Issuance of Multi-family Housing Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for an Affordable Housing Project Located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway 1. Staff Report: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner 2. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Possible Action: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition and construction of Hecker Pass Apartments project. (Roll Call Vote) B. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration; Approval of Planned Unit Development, the Tentative Map, and Architectural and Site Review Permit for the Cottages at Kern Planned Unit Development Residential Subdivision Project. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 08/16/2021 Page6 1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I 2. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Possible Action: a) Review and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and b) Introduce an ordinance to approve Planned Unit Development Z 20 -06 as requested, subject to certain findings; and c) Introduce a resolution to approve Tentative Map TM 20-06, as requested, subject to certain findings; and d) Introduce a resolution to approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20 as requested, subject to certain findings and conditions. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Appointments to Fill Vacancies on Boards & Commissions 1. Staff Report: LeeAnn McPhillips, Administrative Services/HR Director/Risk Manager 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Appoint members to the vacant seats on the Arts & Culture Commission, Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Library Commission, and Physically Challenged Board of Appeals X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Customer Service Strategy Metrics, Implementation Measures, and Timelines 1. Staff Report: Julie Wyrick, Customer Service Manager 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Receive Report and provide feedback. B. Selection of Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities 2021 Annual Conference 1. Staff Report: Anne Bybee, Interim City Clerk 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Appointment of a Council Member to serve as voting delegate for the City of Gilroy at the League of California Cities 2021 Conference. C. Authorize Funding for Improvements at the Gilroy Golf Course City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 08/16/2021 Page7 1. Staff Report: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: 1. Authorize funding for capital improvements at the Gilroy Golf Course in the amount of $113,900. 2. Adopt a resolution appropriating the $113,900 form Capital Projects Fund (400) for the related improvements. XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS XIII. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation; Paragraph (1) of Subdivision (d) of 54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(3)(a); Case Name: Miriam Smith vs. City of Gilroy, et al.; United States Northern District Court of California San Jose Division; Case No. 5:21-cv-00313-VKD, Filed January 13, 2021. ADJOURNMENT MEETING DATES AUGUST 2021 23* Special Joint Meeting with Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Morgan Hill via Zoom - 6:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 2021 13* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. 20* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. OCTOBER 2021 4* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. 18* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. * meeting is webstreamed and televised Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 2020-21 Commission Accomplishments Procedural and Structural: •Refreshed Strategic Plan/Work Plan •On-boarded three new commission members in January 2021 •Participating in City Budget Process and Development Comments Public Events and Outreach: •Gilroy Bike Pledge Awards •Bike to Wherever Day 2021 •Ride the Gardens Event 2021 •Face Mask Purchases •Social Media Campaigns 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council Bicycle Pedestrian Commission BPAC Project Highlight: The Gilroy Bike Pledge Initiative •Provides metrics to the VTA for Measure B E&E funds use •Drives community engagement around safe cycling •Commissioner Nirza Starks has expanded the program in 2021 •Take the bike pledge! 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council Bicycle Pedestrian Commission BPAC Project Highlight: Face Mask Donations to the Community •First major purchase using Measure B E&E funds •Environmentally friendly and reusable masks •Covid-19 limited safe bike/ped activities and events •1000 adult and child sized facemasks ordered •40% passed out at BTWD and Ride the Gardens events 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Covid-delayed BPAC Projects and Events Returning Soon Safe Routes to School •Walk & Roll Wednesdays •Task Force/Walk Audits •Custom SRTS signage for schools Community Events •National night out •Downtown LIVE •San Ysidro Nueva Vida •Walk to school day •Bike valet services 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Long Range Goal 1: Preparing Gilroy for an Electric Future •E-scooter and E-bike provider sourcing and engagement •Project Chrysalis: E-bike pilot program in Gilroy •Mitigating VMT at new developments with EV charging stations •Multi-modal Electric Transit Hub in downtown Gilroy Long Range Goal 2: Bicycle Parking and Safety Expansion •Project 529 for bicycle registration/retrieval •Covered bike-parking at commercial business locations •Guaranteed safe biking routes: (striping, light timing, etc) 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Thank you to Sheila Castillo our recording secretary Thank you and farewell to Nirorn Than Thank you to Gary Heap for his service as our prior staff liaison Thank you to Eugene Bernosky our bicyclist of the year for 2021 Welcome to Bryce Atkins our new BPAC staff liaison 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council Thank You #GilroyBPAC 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Communication: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project No. 21-PW-264 and Approval of a Final Contract with Balch Petroleum Contractors & Builders, Inc in the Amount of $171,783.46 Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Daryl Jordan Prepared By: Daryl Jordan Sara Soto Strategic Plan Goals  Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety  Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION a) Approve a notice of acceptance of completion for the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project No. 21-PW-264. b) Approve a final contract in the amount of $171,783.46 with Balch Petroleum Contractors & Builders, Inc for the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project No. 21-PW-264. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6.A Packet Pg. 15 The Public Works Department has completed construction of the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project (Project) and has reviewed and approved all Project documentation. The Project removed and replaced two existing fuel dispensers and all associated equipment, fittings and accessories, the concrete island and slab, and installed a new accessible card reader unit at the City Corporation Yard. This project was funded through the Fleet Fund, Fund 600. The cost of the Project is $171,783.46. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project , Project No. 21- PW-264. BACKGROUND This Project was required for the secondary containment system of the Underground Storage Tanks to remain in compliance with the California State Water Resources Control Board. The City Council awarded the construction contract to Balch Petroleum Contractors & Builders, Inc. at the February 22, 2021 meeting in the amount of $166,250 with a contingency of $16,625 (for a total construction allocation of $182,875) and authorized the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. ANALYSIS The Project scope of work included the removal, disposal, and replacement of two existing suction system fuel dispensers and all associated equipment, fittings, and accessories, including replacement of concrete island and slab, and installation of a new accessible card reader unit at the Corporation Yard. During construction, four construction change orders (CCO) were executed for the Project. These change orders are summarized below: CCO#1A and B – Change Order 1A was for two (2) flex connectors for piping sump product lines. Change Order 1B was for cost of one (1) 18"-watertight manhole. CCO#2 – This change order was requested by the City of Gilroy’s Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA). The contractor was asked to perform the Annual Monitoring and testing for compliance. CCO#3 – This change order was for cost of material and installation of two (2) OPW 11B nozzles. CCO#4 – Final Balancing Change Order – This change order increased the contract amount by increasing quantities needed for completion of the Project. 6.A Packet Pg. 16 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Construction Contract Amount $166,250.00 CCO #1 – Flex Connectors and Manhole $910.29 CCO #2 – Annual Monitoring Testing $2,350.00 CCO #3 – Replacement OPW11B Nozzles $173.17 CCO #4 – Final Balancing Change Order $2,100.00 FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST $171,783.46 All combined, the change order and quantity adjustments resulted in a net increase in the contract value by $5,533.46 for a total construction cost of $171,783.46. A total amount of $5,533.46 was used from the project’s authorized contingency amount of $16,625. The overall construction schedule for the Project was 20 working days. The first day of construction was on May 24, 2021. The construction was completed on schedule on June 21, 2021. Project documentation has been completed and all punch-list items have been addressed by the contractor. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair Project, Project No. 21-PW-264. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The Project construction cost was under budget at $171,783.46 compared to an overall authorized budget of $182,875 with contingency. The amount of $5,533.46 was utilized from the available $16,625 contingency. Construction of this Project was funded through the Fleet Fund, Fund 600. Attachments: 1. 21-PW-264 Notice of Completion 2. 21-PW-264 CCO no. 4- Final Balancing CO 6.A Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 21-PW-264 Notice of Completion (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) 6.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 21-PW-264 Notice of Completion (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) 6.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 21-PW-264 Notice of Completion (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) 07/14/2021 7/14/2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 36AF9249-3925-4326-B904-F1D64F6FECAD 7/19/2021 7/19/2021 7/19/2021 6.A.b Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 21-PW-264 CCO no. 4- Final Balancing CO (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) DocuSign Envelope ID: 36AF9249-3925-4326-B904-F1D64F6FECAD 6.A.b Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 21-PW-264 CCO no. 4- Final Balancing CO (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) DocuSign Envelope ID: 36AF9249-3925-4326-B904-F1D64F6FECAD 6.A.b Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 21-PW-264 CCO no. 4- Final Balancing CO (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) DocuSign Envelope ID: 36AF9249-3925-4326-B904-F1D64F6FECAD 6.A.b Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 21-PW-264 CCO no. 4- Final Balancing CO (3385 : NOC Fuel Station Secondary Containment Components Repair) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access Rights (Abutters Rights) Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Public Works Department Submitted By: Daryl Jordan Prepared By: Jorge Duran Gary Heap Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution to authorize the City Administrator to execute the Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access Rights (Abutters Rights) Grant Deed for a portion of Santa Teresa Boulevard along a portion of Lot 17, Tract 9374, APN 810-660-012. BACKGROUND In March 2020, the developer, JEMCOR Development Partners, contacted the City to discuss the affordable Hecker Pass Apartments project located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa (APN: 810-660-012). This property was originally subdivided as Lot 17 in Tract 9374, The Village Green. 6.B Packet Pg. 25 On November 26, 2001, as part of the subdivision approval for Tract 9374, The Village Green, a previous owner of the property relinquished to the City all vehicular access rights along Santa Theresa Boulevard for Lot 17. ANALYSIS The site is an irregularly shaped parcel at the southwest corner of Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard (aka, Lot 17 of Tract 9374 , The Village Green). Access is proposed from the existing entrance from Hecker Pass Highway, with a new secondary access requested from Santa Teresa Boulevard. Part of the project approval included a traffic analysis to determine if the access from Santa Teresa Boulevard could be supported. The City would also need to quitclaim the relinquishment of vehicular access rights (abutters rights) established in the original subdivision Tract 9374, The Village Green. On November 10, 2020 the traffic analysis was completed, concluding that a new secondary access from Santa Teresa Boulevard would be supported. The City Engineer also determined that the quitclaim of abutter’s rights for a portion of property would not have an impact on the operation of Santa Teresa Boulevard. On March 12, 2021, the Planning Division approved the project application AS 20-19, including permitting the relinquishment of abutter's rights of access to Santa Teresa Boulevard for a proposed project entrance. The pertinent conditions of approval include the following: Quitclaim Abutters Rights Along Santa Teresa Boulevard: Tract No 9374 relinquished all vehicular access rights from Lot 17 onto Santa Teresa Boulevard. The City will quitclaim this restriction. The applicant will work with staff and prepare necessary instruments to remove the abutter’s rights. This may require submittal of a separate request to Engineering for processing. The attached quitclaim deed fulfills this condition of approval and has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. ALTERNATIVES If the City Council decides to deny this request, the development will not be permitted to have driveway access onto Santa Teresa Boulevard. This would create significant circulation issues for the project which would make the development of that site infeasible. FISCAL IMPACT 6.B Packet Pg. 26 There is no net impact to the General Fund. Plan check and inspection fees have been collected to cover the costs associated with this action. NEXT STEPS Once approved by City Council, the quitclaim deed will be recorded with the County of Santa Clara. Attachments: 1. Fig 1 - Vicinity Map 2. Fig 2 - Resolution 3. Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed 6.B Packet Pg. 27 6.B.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Fig 1 - Vicinity Map (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) -1- RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED TO VILLAGE GREEN CUSTOM HOME LLC FOR ABUTTER’S RIGHTS ALONG THE PROPERTY AT 1520 HECKER PASS HIGHWAY (AREA PARCEL NUMBER 810-66- 012) The City Council of the City of Gilroy (“City”) does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. Village Green Custom Home LLC (“Village Green”) holds fee title to certain real property located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway (Area Parcel Number (“APN”) 810- 66-012) in the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Village Green Property”), to be developed as affordable multifamily housing (“Project”). Primary vehicle access for the Project is proposed from Hecker Pass Highway (SR 152), with secondary access requested from Santa Teresa Boulevard. Section 2. On November 26, 2001, as part of a subdivision approval situated in the City known as “Tract No. 9374, The Village Green,” a previous owner of the Property relinquished to the City all vehicular access rights along Santa Theresa Boulevard from Lot 17 as depicted on Exhibit B. The Village Green Property is located on Lot 17. Section 3. To allow the development of the Project, the City shall quitclaim a portion of the relinquishment of vehicular access rights from the 2001 subdivision approval and return the abutter’s rights to the Village Green through a Quitclaim Deed for relinquishment. All abutter’s rights may be exercised only in accordance with approved development permits issued by the City. The relinquishment of this abutter’s vehicular access rights along Santa Teresa 6.B.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) -2- Boulevard shall become effective upon adoption of this Resolution. The Quitclaim Deed shall be filed subsequent to, and inclusive of this resolution. Section 4. Following recordation of this Resolution, from and after the effective dates specified at Section 3 above, the abutter’s vehicular access rights shall no longer be relinquished to the City and shall be restored to Village Green. Section 5. The City Council finds that relinquishing the abutter’s rights interest referenced in Sections 2, 3, and 4 above is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2), Section 15303 (Class 3(d)), and Section 15061(b)(3). Section 6. That certain Quitclaim Deed to be recorded following the adoption of this resolution, that forever remises and releases all rights acquired by the City over the Village Green Property from the November 26, 2001 relinquishment as described in Exhibit C and shown on Exhibit D, is hereby approved. Section 7. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Quitclaim Deed on behalf of the City. Section 8. The City Clerk is directed to: (a) Certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City. (b) Record the Quitclaim Deed in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara. 6.B.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) -3- Adopted: MARIE BLANKEY Mayor of the City of Gilroy, California ATTEST: (SEAL) LeeAnn McPhillips Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ANDY FABER City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GARY HEAP City Engineer 6.B.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.b Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Fig 2 - Resolution (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) -1- RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: David Blackwell, Esq. APN: 810-66-012 (Space above line for Recorder’s Use Only) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $ 0 __X__ Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR _____ Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax – Firm Name QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THE CITY OF GILROY (“Grantor”), by Resolution adopted ________________, attached hereto, does hereby forever remise, release and quitclaim to VILLAGE GREEN CUSTOM HOME LLC, a California limited liability company (“Grantee”), a portion of the existing relinquished vehicular access rights along Santa Teresa Boulevard over the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Said portion being quitclaimed is described on Exhibit C and shown on Exhibit D attached hereto. GRANTOR: CITY OF GILROY By: Name: Title: 6.B.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) -2- ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California ) County of ______________________ ) On _________________________, before me, , (insert name of notary) Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 6.B.c Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.c Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.c Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.c Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 6.B.c Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Fig 3 - Quitclaim Deed (3410 : Hecker Pass Apartments, Quitclaim of Relinquishment of Vehicular Access (Abutters Rights)) 1 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 City of Gilroy City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2021 I. OPENING A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Marie Blankley. 1. Pledge of Allegiance Council Member Marques led the pledge of allegiance. 2. Invocation There was no invocation. 3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda Michelle Bigelow reported the agenda was posted on July 29th at 10:50 a.m. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Marie Blankley Mayor Remote Rebeca Armendariz Council Member Remote Dion Bracco Council Member Remote Zach Hilton Council Member Remote Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Absent Carol Marques Council Member Remote Fred Tovar Council Member Remote B. Orders of the Day Mayor Blankley announced that the Council was participating remotely under the Governor's order and she then provided details on the process of public participation. C. Employee Introductions City Manager Jimmy Forbis introduced Karine Decker, the City's new Economic Development Management Analyst. Administrative Services/Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips introduced Cheryl Kouetas, the new Senior Human Resources Analyst. II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations 1. Certificate of Achievement Valeria Rivera Mayor Blankley presented Valeria Rivera a certificate of recognition in honor of being selected as Miss Gilroy USA. III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment for items not on the agenda. 6.C Packet Pg. 42 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 2 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 The following people spoke regarding the Stars and Strides Run fundraising event on August 22, 2021 sponsored by Bloomenergy: James Apffel and Michael Elliot. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Blankley closed public comment. A. Interviews for Open Seats on Boards, Commissions and Committees Vacant as of June, 2021 for Future Appointment August 16, 2021 Interviews for open seats were held as follows: Arts and Culture Commission, term expires 12/31/2023 - Applicant Lisa Carter Housing Advisory Committee, term expires 12/31/2023 - Applicant Carissa Purnell Physically Challenged Board of Appeals, term expires 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024 - One Applicant Tracy Stephens Possible Action: Interview candidates for open seats on Boards, Commissions and Committees vacant as of June, 2021. IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Bracco, no report. Council Member Armendariz, no report. Council Member Marques reported 25% of Gilroy Gardens website referrals are going to lodging facilities listed on the website. Council Member Hilton reported on Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board and results of a report regarding the co-op campaign with Expedia and visit Gilroy. Council Member Tovar, no report. He thanked fellow council members and the many community members who joined the last downtown live music event and supported the local businesses. Also announced a new restaurant, the Temple Restaurant. Mayor Blankley reported that the Cities Association has now received updated information on Gilroy PD training and public safety procedures. V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS Council Member Hilton requested to place the city code chapter 30 (noise and zoning) on a future agenda. Mayor Blankley stated this does not need to be a future agenda item and staff can include the recommendation in the work they are already doing. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE) There were no public comments. 6.C Packet Pg. 43 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 3 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz A. 7-1-21 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes B. Approval of a Third Amendment to the Agreement with Lynx Technologies in the Amount of $43,725 for Geographic Information System (GIS) Support and Maintenance C. Opening of Recruitment for Vacancy on Planning Commission VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Award a Contract for Tree Pruning and Maintenance Services Under a Cooperative Purchase Agreement to West Coast Arborists, Inc. in the Amount Not-To-Exceed $395,045 for the Initial Period with Contract Extensions up to Five Additional Years Public Works Director Daryl Jordan provided the report. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. There were no public comments. Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Possible Action: Award a contract for annual tree pruning and maintenance services under a cooperative purchase agreement to West Coast Arborists, Inc. in the amount not-to-exceed $395,045 for the initial 12 month period with options for extensions up to year five and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Adopt Resolutions Ordering The City Administrator To Abate, Or Cause To Be Abated, Blight Conditions that Constitute a Public Nuisance At 402 Madison Court And 6860 Rosanna Street. Building Official Hipolito Olmos provided the report and presentation. Ex-parte communications - none. Mayor Blankley opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Blankle closed the public hearing. 6.C Packet Pg. 44 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 4 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 Possible Action: a) Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy ordering the City Administrator to abate, or cause to be abated, blight conditions that constitute a public nuisance at 402 Madison Court. b) Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy ordering the City Administrator to abate, or cause to be abated, blight conditions that constitute a public nuisance at 6860 Rosanna Street. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz Motion to: Motion part b 6860 roseanna st RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Leroe-Muñoz B. Consideration of the Report of Abatement of Weeds and Refuse Within the City of Gilroy and Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Confirming the Imposition of Assessment Liens Against the Land Deputy Fire Marshal Jonathan Crick provided the report. Ex-parte communications - none. Mayor Blankley opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Blankley closed the public hearing. 6.C Packet Pg. 45 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 5 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 Possible Action: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy confirming the report of the Chief of the Fire Department setting forth the description of property, naming the owners thereof and the costs of abating the nuisance caused by the growing of weeds and accumulation of refuse on the property, and providing that such costs shall constitute assessments against the land. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Carol Marques, Council Member SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Unhoused Ad Hoc Committee Priorities Implementation Report Senior Management Analyst Bryce Adkins provided the report and presentation. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. Public comment was received from the following speakers: Tim Davis Tristia Bauman Chris Vanessa Bruce Magee Lizanne Davey Francesca Paist There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Possible Action: Receive report. X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Un-housed Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Endorsing the Community Plan to End Homelessness City Administrator Jimmy Forbis provided the report. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. Public comment was received from the following speakers: Tim Davis Tristia Bauman Jorge Mendoza David Almeida Bruce Lizanne Davey 6.C Packet Pg. 46 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 6 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 Chris Jan Bernstein Chargin There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Possible Action: The Unhoused Ad Hoc Committee recommends adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy endorsing the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz B. Resolution Declaring the Gilroy Gardens Hillside Property as Surplus Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 Community Development Director Karen Garner provided the report and presentation. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. Public comment was received from the following speakers: Brian Schmidt - Green Foothills Bruce Magee Chris There being no requests to speak, Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Possible Action: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy declaring the Gilroy Gardens Hillside Property (approximately 342 acres) to be surplus land, and direct staff to proceed in conformance with the State Surplus Lands Act regarding the potential disposition of said property. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz C. Review of City Clerk Job Description and Recruitment Process, and Establish a Council Sub-Committee for the City Clerk Recruitment Process Administrative Services/Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips provided the report. Subject to City Council approval, Mayor Blankley recommended Councilmembers Leroe-Muñoz and Hilton, and Mayor Blankley be appointed to the Subcommittee. 6.C Packet Pg. 47 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 7 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 Mayor Blankley opened public comment. There was no public comment. Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Motion on Item a. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco and seconded by Council Member Tovar to approve updates to the City Clerk job description. Possible Action: a. Review and Approve Updates to the City Clerk Job Description b. Review City Clerk Recruitment Process/Schedule and Provide Feedback/Direction c. Establish a Three Member Council Sub-Committee to work on the City Clerk Recruitment Process RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz Motion to: Motion Motion on Item c. Motion was made by Council Member Tovar and seconded by Council Member Bracco to establish a sub-committee of Mayor Blankley, and Council Member Hilton and Leroe-Muñoz to work on the City Clerk recruitment process. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Leroe-Muñoz D. Approval of AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter, Memoranda of Understanding and Salary Schedules for the Period July 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2022 and Approval of the Unrepresented, Confidential, Non-Exempt Salary Schedule for the Period Beginning July 1, 2021 Administrative Services/Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips provided the report. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. There was no public comment. Mayor Blankley closed public comment. 6.C Packet Pg. 48 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 8 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 Action on Item a. Motion was made by Council Member Armendariz, seconded by Council Member Hilton to approve the Memoranda of Understanding between the City and AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter for the period of July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022: Possible Action: a. Approve the Memoranda of Understanding between the City and AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter for the period July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022; and, b. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the July 1, 2021 AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter salary schedules associated with the AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter, Memoranda of Understanding; and c. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the Unrepresented, Confidential, Non-Exempt Employee Salary Schedule for the period beginning July 1, 2021. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member SECONDER: Zach Hilton, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz Motion to: Motion Action on Item b. Motion was made by Council Member Hilton, seconded by Council Member Armendariz to adopt Resolutions 2021-39 and 2021-40 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the July 1, 2021 AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter salary schedules associated with the AFSCME, Local 101 (General & Supervisory Units), Gilroy Chapter, Memoranda of Understanding. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Zach Hilton, Council Member SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Leroe-Muñoz Motion to: Motion Action on Item c. Motion was made by Council Member Armendariz, seconded by Council Member Hilton to adopt Resolution 2021-41 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the Unrepresented, Confidential, Non-Exempt Employee Salary Schedule for the period beginning July 1, 2021. 6.C Packet Pg. 49 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 9 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member SECONDER: Zach Hilton, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Leroe-Muñoz E. Approval of a Declaration that Level 2 Water Supply Shortage Conditions Exist, Implementing the Provisions of Ordinance No. 2016-15, Section III, D "Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (21% - 35% reduction)" Public Works Director Daryl Jordan provided the report and presentation. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. Public comment was received from the following speaker: Bruce Magee There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Action on Item a. Motion was made by Council Member Tovar, seconded by Council Member Armendariz to adopt Resolution 2021-42 declaring that Level 2 Water Supply Shortage Conditions exist, which would implement the provisions of Ordinance No. 2016-15, Section III, D "Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (21%-35% reduction)" effective immediately, with the goal of achieving a 33% reduction as called for by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for our water basin. Possible Action: a) Approve a Resolution declaring that Level 2 Water Supply Shortage Conditions exist, which would implement the provisions of Ordinance No. 2016-15, Section III, D “Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (21% - 35% reduction)” effective immediately, with the goal of achieving a 33% reduction as called for by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for our water basin. b) Suspend the installation of turf in new parks until further notice unless turf will be irrigated with recycled water. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz Motion to: Motion Action on Item b. 6.C Packet Pg. 50 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 10 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 Motion was made by Council Member Tovar, seconded by Council Member Armendariz to suspend the installation of turf in new parks until further notice, unless turf will be the irrigated with recycled water. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member AYES: Blankley, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Leroe-Muñoz F. Authorization to Request a Deferment in Releasing a Request for Offer from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for a Transit Oriented Development Project City Administrator Jimmy Forbis provided the report. Mayor Blankley opened public comment. Public comment was received from the following speakers: Huascar Castro Tim Davis Kat Wortham Rick SV@Home Vanessa Jorge Mendoza Roland Gary Walton Consuelo Rebecca Garcia There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Blankley closed public comment. Possible Action: Authorize the Mayor to state the City’s request to delay release of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency’s issuance of a Request for Offer of a portion of the Gilroy Transit Center’s location for an affordable housing project for further impact analysis. RESULT: APPROVE [4 TO 2] MOVER: Carol Marques, Council Member SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member AYES: Marie Blankley, Dion Bracco, Carol Marques, Fred Tovar NAYS: Rebeca Armendariz, Zach Hilton ABSENT: Peter Leroe-Muñoz XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT None. XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS None. XIII. CLOSED SESSION 6.C Packet Pg. 51 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) 11 City Council Meeting Minutes 08/2/2021 None. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Blankley adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. MEETING DATES AUGUST 2021 16* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. 23* Special Joint Meeting with Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Morgan Hill via Zoom - 6:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 2021 13* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. 20* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. * meeting is webstreamed and televised /s/ LeeAnn McPhillips Administrative Services/HR Director/Risk Manager 6.C Packet Pg. 52 Communication: 8-2-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of Single Source Contract in the Amount of $196,007 with Stryker Emergency Care for the Purchase of Seven (7) LifePack 15 Monitor/Defibrillators, Including a Discounted 4-year Maintenance Agreement. Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Fire Department Submitted By: Jim Wyatt Prepared By: Jennifer Fortino Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services  Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Award a single source contract to Stryker Emergency Care in the amount of $196,007 for the purchase of seven (7) LifePack 15 Monitors/Defibrillators, including a discounted 4-year maintenance agreement, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Gilroy Fire Department recommends awarding a single source contract to Stryker Emergency Care for the purchase and replacement of seven (7) LifePack 15 Monitors/Defibrillators, including a 4-year maintenance contract, using the vendor’s 7.A Packet Pg. 53 buyback incentive program. The LifePack 15 Monitor/Defibrillator (LP-15) is a standard essential advanced life support (ALS) piece of equipment that is used for the assessment and treatment of patients suffering from cardiac-related problems, including but not limited to heart attacks and sudden cardiac arrest. The Fire Department currently has nine (9) LP-15’s located on front-line and reserve apparatus that are designated for ALS response. Of the nine (9) LP -15 units, seven (7) were purchased nearly eight (8) years ago. Due to changes in technology, and the availability of internal replacement electronics, these seven (7) units will not be repairable after 2022. Stryker Emergency Care, the company that manufactures the LP -15, offers an incentive program in which they will buy back the older LP-15 units and allow us to purchase brand new LP-15 units at a steep discount. To qualify for this discount, the City must purchase at least $100,000 in equipment. The regular list price of an LP -15, including tax and the non-discounted maintenance agreement, is $49,526 per unit. The special buyback program pricing lowers the total cost, including tax and the discounted maintenance agreement, to $28,001 per LP-15. This is a savings of $21,525 per LP-15 unit. BACKGROUND In 2014, Gilroy Fire received an Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the purchase of seven (7) LP -15 units as part of our ALS program. This purchase provided state -of-the-art monitor/defibrillators to ensure all front-line and most reserve apparatus could be designated to provide advanced life support (ALS) with on-duty paramedics. The purchase of these LP-15 units can be credited with saving the lives of ten (10) Gilroy residents who were successfully resuscitated in 2020 after suffering from cardiac arrest. In the past two years, the Fire Department purchased two (2) more LP-15 units to outfit additional apparatus to be ALS equipped. Currently, the Department has nine (9) LP-15 units located on front-line and ALS reserve apparatus. Of the nine (9) LP-15 units, seven (7) were purchased nearly eight (8) years ago, and due to the changes in technology, and the availability of internal replacement electronics, these units will no 7.A Packet Pg. 54 longer be repairable after 2022. ANALYSIS The latest version of the LP-15 offers state-of-the-art technology that will allow these units to be repaired and serviceable over the next eight (8) years. The seven (7) aging LP-15 units would be replaced giving the Department an extended usable life of another eight (8) years for all frontline and ALS reserve apparatus. Stryker Emergency Care, the company that manufactures the LP -15, offers an incentive program in which they will buy back the older LP-15 units and allow the department to purchase brand new units at a steep discount. The regular list price of an LP-15, including tax and the non-discounted maintenance agreement, is $49,526 per unit. The special buyback pricing lowers the total cost, including tax and the discounted maintenance agreement, to $28,001 per LP-15 for a total cost of $196,007 (7 units x $28,001 = $196,007). This is a savings of $21,525 per LP -15 unit, or a total savings of $150,675 (7 units x $21,525 = $150,675). Single Source procurement is allowed pursuant to section 6.2 of the City’s purchasing policy and is defined as selection of goods or services that may be available from two or more sources, but there is a compelling reason to select one vendor. In the case of this purchase, the fleet of monitor/defibrillator devices would be standardized to be the same make and model across all apparatus and, staff will be trained on this standardized device. In addition, due to the incentive program offered by the manufacturer of the device, staff determines it to be a compelling reason to procure directly from the manufacturer. Other medical equipment vendors do offer this device, but the units offered at discounted prices are generally refurbished units. The devices through Stryker would be brand new and include a 4-year maintenance agreement. ALTERNATIVES Purchase one (1) new replacement LP-15 unit each year over the next seven (7) years at an estimated total cost of $49,526 per LP-15 unit. The total estimated cost, after purchasing one (1) LP-15 per year for seven (7) years, would be $346,682. This alternative would cost the City an additional $150,675 and assumes that all seven (7) aging units would not be replaced until 2029. This alternative is not recommended by staff. 7.A Packet Pg. 55 FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE No budget amendments are needed for this procurement. This purchase will be absorbed in the Fire Department’s current Fiscal Year 2022 adopted budget, within the General Fund NEXT STEPS If approved, the Department will initiate the purchase of seven (7) LP-15 units using the Stryker buyback incentive program. PUBLIC OUTREACH None. Attachments: 1. Gilroy FD LP15 v2 trade in quote 8.9.2021 2. Gilroy FD LP15 procare quote 8.9.2021 7.A Packet Pg. 56 Quote Summary Delivery Address End User - Shipping - Billing Bill To Account Name: GILROY FIRE DEPT Name: GILROY FIRE DEPT Name: GILROY FIRE DEPT Account #: 1109627 Account #: 1109627 Account #: 1109627 Address: 7070 CHESTNUT ST Address: 7070 CHESTNUT ST Address: 7070 CHESTNUT ST GILROY GILROY GILROY California 95020-6610 California 95020-6610 California 95020-6610 Equipment Products: # Product Description Qty Sell Price Total 1.0 99577-001957 LIFEPAK 15 V4 Monitor/Defib - Manual & AED, Trending,Noninvasive Pacing, SpO2, SpCO, NIBP, 12-Lead ECG,EtCO2, BT. Incl at N/C: 2 pr QC Electrodes(11996-000091) & 1 Test Load (21330-001365) perdevice, 1 Svc Manual CD (26500-003612) per order 7 $28,282.10 $197,974.70 2.0 41577-000288 Ship Kit -QUIK-COMBO Therapy Cable; 2 rolls100mmPaper; RC-4, Patient Cable, 4ft.; NIBP Hose, Coiled;NIBP Cuff, Reusable, adult; 12-Lead ECG Cable, 4-WireLimb Leads, 5ft; 12-Lead ECG Cable, 6-Wire Precordialattachment 7 $0.00 $0.00 3.0 21330-001176 LP 15 Lithium-ion Battery 5.7 amp hrs 10 $405.08 $4,050.80 4.0 11171-000053 Masimo™DBI-DC8, Adult Reusable Direct Connect SoftSpO2 only Sensor 7 $598.60 $4,190.20 5.0 11160-000011 NIBP Cuff-Reusable, Infant 7 $18.86 $132.02 6.0 11160-000013 NIBP Cuff-Reusable, Child 7 $21.32 $149.24 7.0 11160-000017 NIBP Cuff -Reusable, Large Adult 7 $29.52 $206.64 8.0 11160-000019 NIBP Cuff-Reusable, Adult X Large 7 $41.82 $292.74 9.0 11577-000002 LIFEPAK 15 Basic carry case w/right & left pouches;shoulder strap (11577-000001) included at no additionalcharge when case ordered with a LIFEPAK 15 device 7 $276.34 $1,934.38 10.0 11220-000028 LIFEPAK 15 Carry case top pouch 7 $50.02 $350.14 11.0 11260-000039 LIFEPAK 15 Carry case back pouch 7 $71.34 $499.38 Equipment Total: $209,780.24 LP15 replacement Quote Number: 10289445 Remit to: Stryker Medical P.O. Box 93308 Version: 1 Chicago, IL 60673-3308 Prepared For: GILROY FIRE DEPT Rep: Antonella Bondi Attn: Email: antonella.bondi@stryker.com Phone Number: Quote Date: 07/12/2021 Expiration Date: 11/07/2021 1 Stryker Medical - Accounts Receivable - accountsreceivable@stryker.com - PO BOX 93308 - Chicago, IL 60673-3308 7.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Gilroy FD LP15 v2 trade in quote 8.9.2021 (3413 : LP 15 Defibrillator Purchase) Trade In Credit: Product Description Qty Credit Ea. Total Credit TR-15V1V2-LP15 TRADE-IN-STRYKER LP15V1/V2 TOWARDS PURCHASE OFLIFEPAK 15 7 -$9,917.10 -$69,419.70 Price Totals: Estimated Sales Tax (9.125%): $12,807.90 Freight/Shipping: $0.00 Grand Total: $153,168.44 Comments/Terms/Signatures Prices: In effect for 60 days. Terms: Net 30 Days Contact your local Sales Representative for more information about our flexible payment options. ________________________________________ AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE LP15 replacement Quote Number: 10289445 Remit to: Stryker Medical P.O. Box 93308 Version: 1 Chicago, IL 60673-3308 Prepared For: GILROY FIRE DEPT Rep: Antonella Bondi Attn: Email: antonella.bondi@stryker.com Phone Number: Quote Date: 07/12/2021 Expiration Date: 11/07/2021 2 Stryker Medical - Accounts Receivable - accountsreceivable@stryker.com - PO BOX 93308 - Chicago, IL 60673-3308 7.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Gilroy FD LP15 v2 trade in quote 8.9.2021 (3413 : LP 15 Defibrillator Purchase) Capital Terms and Conditions: Deal Consummation: This is a quote and not a commitment. This quote is subject to final credit, pricing, and documentation approval. Legal documentation must be signed before your equipment can be delivered. Documentation will be provided upon completion of our review process and your selection of a payment schedule. Confidentiality Notice: Recipient will not disclose to any third party the terms of this quote or any other information, including any pricing or discounts, offered to be provided by Stryker to Recipient in connection with this quote, without Stryker’s prior written approval, except as may be requested by law or by lawful order of any applicable government agency. A copy of Stryker Medical's Acute Care capital terms and conditions can be found at https:// techweb.stryker.com/Terms_Conditions/index.html. A copy of Stryker Medical's Emergency Care capital terms and conditions can be found at https://www.strykeremergencycare.com/terms. 3 7.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Gilroy FD LP15 v2 trade in quote 8.9.2021 (3413 : LP 15 Defibrillator Purchase) Quote Summary Delivery Address End User - Shipping - Billing Bill To Account Name: GILROY FIRE DEPT Name: GILROY FIRE DEPT Name: GILROY FIRE DEPT Account #: 1109627 Account #: 1109627 Account #: 1109627 Address: 7070 CHESTNUT ST Address: 7070 CHESTNUT ST Address: 7070 CHESTNUT ST GILROY GILROY GILROY California 95020-6610 California 95020-6610 California 95020-6610 ProCare Products: # Product Description Years Qty Sell Price Total 13.1 78000008 ProCare LIFEPAK 15 Prevent Service: Annual onsitepreventive maintenance inspection and unlimitedrepairs including parts, labor and travel with batterycoverage for LIFEPAK 15 V4 Monitor/Defib - Manual& AED, Trending, Noninvasive Pacing, SpO2, SpCO,NIBP, 12-Lead ECG, EtCO2, BT. Incl at N/C: 2 pr QCElectrodes (11996-000091) & 1 Test Load(21330-001365) per device, 1 Svc Manual CD(26500-003612) per order 4 7 $6,120.00 $42,840.00 ProCare Total: $42,840.00 Price Totals: Comments/Terms/Signatures Prices: In effect for 60 days. Terms: Net 30 Days Contact your local Sales Representative for more information about our flexible payment options. LP15 replacement Quote Number: 10289445 Remit to: Stryker Medical P.O. Box 93308 Version: 1 Chicago, IL 60673-3308 Prepared For: GILROY FIRE DEPT Rep: Antonella Bondi Attn: Email: antonella.bondi@stryker.com Phone Number: Quote Date: 07/12/2021 Expiration Date: 11/07/2021 1 Stryker Medical - Accounts Receivable - accountsreceivable@stryker.com - PO BOX 93308 - Chicago, IL 60673-3308 7.A.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Gilroy FD LP15 procare quote 8.9.2021 (3413 : LP 15 Defibrillator Purchase) ________________________________________ AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE LP15 replacement Quote Number: 10289445 Remit to: Stryker Medical P.O. Box 93308 Version: 1 Chicago, IL 60673-3308 Prepared For: GILROY FIRE DEPT Rep: Antonella Bondi Attn: Email: antonella.bondi@stryker.com Phone Number: Quote Date: 07/12/2021 Expiration Date: 11/07/2021 2 Stryker Medical - Accounts Receivable - accountsreceivable@stryker.com - PO BOX 93308 - Chicago, IL 60673-3308 7.A.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Gilroy FD LP15 procare quote 8.9.2021 (3413 : LP 15 Defibrillator Purchase) Capital Terms and Conditions: Deal Consummation: This is a quote and not a commitment. This quote is subject to final credit, pricing, and documentation approval. Legal documentation must be signed before your equipment can be delivered. Documentation will be provided upon completion of our review process and your selection of a payment schedule. Confidentiality Notice: Recipient will not disclose to any third party the terms of this quote or any other information, including any pricing or discounts, offered to be provided by Stryker to Recipient in connection with this quote, without Stryker’s prior written approval, except as may be requested by law or by lawful order of any applicable government agency. A copy of Stryker Medical's Acute Care capital terms and conditions can be found at https:// techweb.stryker.com/Terms_Conditions/index.html. A copy of Stryker Medical's Emergency Care capital terms and conditions can be found at https://www.strykeremergencycare.com/terms. 3 7.A.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Gilroy FD LP15 procare quote 8.9.2021 (3413 : LP 15 Defibrillator Purchase) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Conduct a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) Public Hearing and Approval of the Issuance of Multi-family Housing Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for an Affordable Housing Project Located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Planning Division (Planning Commission Meetings) Submitted By: Karen Garner Prepared By: Kraig Tambornini Kraig Tambornini Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization  Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability  Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition and construction of Hecker Pass Apartments project. (Roll Call Vote) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On behalf of JEMCOR Development Partners, LLC, an affordable housing developer (the “Developer”), the City is conducting a public hearing under the Tax and Equity 8.A Packet Pg. 63 Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”), in connection with the proposed issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “CMFA”), a joint exercise of powers authority and public entity of the State of California, in an amount not to exceed $40,000,000 (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy, California (the “Project”). POLICY DISCUSSION In order for all or a portion of the bonds for this project to qualify as tax-exempt financing, the City of Gilroy must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing community members an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of this project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the project must provide its approval of the issuance of the bonds for the financing of the Hecker Pass Apartments project. BACKGROUND JEMCOR Development Partners, LLC, (“Borrower”) requested that the CMFA serve as the municipal issuer of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 of tax-exempt revenue bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy, California. In order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Gilroy must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing for the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax -exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. The City conducted a prior TEFRA hearing and passed a resolution on June 21, 2021 for this project. However, the developer needed to change the financing amount. CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY: The CMFA was created on January 1, 2004 pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to promote economic, cultural and community development, through the financing of economic development and charitable activities thro ughout California. To date, over 320 municipalities have become members of CMFA. The City of Gilroy is already a member of the Authority. 8.A Packet Pg. 64 The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The CMFA’s representatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financings. ANALYSIS Approval of the issuance of bonds associated with this project demonstrates the City is trying to support the creation and maintenance of affordable housing within the City by meeting the policies and implementation programs listed below from the City’s 2015- 2023 Housing Element: Goal H-1: Housing Production Policy H-1.1 The City shall strive to ensure adequate land is available at a range of densities to meet Gilroy’s existing and projected housing needs. Policy H-1.2 The City shall encourage the provision of a variety of housing options for Gilroy residents. Policy H-1.3 The City shall encourage a mix of housing in new development areas to avoid the overconcentration of specific housing types in some areas of the city. Policy H-1.6 The City shall continue to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and encourage and coordinate activities with the Downtown Business Association and Economic Development Corporation to encourage mixed-use development. Action H-1.C. Variety of Housing in Neighborhood Districts Action H-1.D. Facilitate Infill Development Goal H-2: Affordable Housing Policy H-2.1 The City shall encourage the provision of new affordable housing. Policy H-2.4 The City shall encourage partnerships between non-profit and for- profit housing developers to encourage affordable housing production. ALTERNATIVES The City Council can choose not to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds for the benefit of the Developer. Staff does not recommend this action. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or 8.A Packet Pg. 65 responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower. The City will receive 25% of the bond issuance fee which for this project is estimated at $14,800.00 after close of funding. Funds have been historically deposited into the Housing Trust Fund account. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, and in order to support affordable housing, staff recommends that the City conduct the TEFRA Hearing and adopt the resolution in favor of the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA. PUBLIC OUTREACH A Notice of Public Hearing of the Gilroy City Council to consider the approval of the issuance of multifamily revenue bonds by the Municipal Finance Authority was published on August 6, 2021, 2021 for the August 16, 2021 Meeting in compliance with local, state and federal requirements. Attachments: 1. TEFRA Resolution - Hecker Pass Apartments Project 8.A Packet Pg. 66 RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF HECKER PASS APARTMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, a partnership of which JEMCOR Development Partners, LLC (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $40,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 1520 Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy, California (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Gilroy (the “City”) because the Project is to be located within the territorial limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Gilroy as follows: Section 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in 8.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: TEFRA Resolution - Hecker Pass Apartments Project (3399 : Hecker Pass Apartments Tax Exempt Financing Bond Hearing) 2 which the Project is to be located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement. Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds. Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein. Section 5. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which the y deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby. Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy held on this ____ day of __________, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 8.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: TEFRA Resolution - Hecker Pass Apartments Project (3399 : Hecker Pass Apartments Tax Exempt Financing Bond Hearing) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration; Approval of Planned Unit Development, the Tentative Map, and Architectural and Site Review Permit for the Cottages at Kern Planned Unit Development Residential Subdivision Project. Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Community Development Department Submitted By: Karen Garner Prepared By: Miguel Contreras Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION a) Review and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and b) Introduce an ordinance to approve Planned Unit Development Z 20 -06 as requested, subject to certain findings; and c) Introduce a resolution to approve Tentative Map TM 20-06, as requested, subject to certain findings; and d) Introduce a resolution to approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20 -20 as requested, subject to certain findings and conditions. 8.B Packet Pg. 69 BACKGROUND Project Summary: D.R. Horton requests approval of zone change application (Z 20-06) for a planned unit development requesting reductions to lot size and setback standards, a tentative map (TM 20-06) to subdivide a vacant 3.74-acre site into 29 single-family residential lots, 0.12 acres of private open space and 0.82 acres of private streets, and an architectural and site review permit (AS 20-20) for development of 29 single-family homes consisting of three (3) architectural styles and three (3) floor plans. The vacant 3.74-acre site located at 9130/9160 Kern Ave. (APN 790-17-002/002), between Mantelli Dr. and Tatum Ave. This application was accepted as complete prior to adoption of the 2040 General Plan (November 4, 2020). Because the proposal was complete under the 2020 General Plan, development may proceed and has been processed under the land use policies. Environmental Review: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study was prepared to evaluate any potentially significant adverse effects of the proposed project on the environment. CEQA allows use for tiering where a project specific impact has been adequately evaluated by a prior environmental document. Therefore, this project is being “tiered” from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2015082014) prepared for the recently adopted 2040 General Plan. The initial study resulted in preparation of a Negative Declaration (SCH# 2021060179) which concluded the project will not have any unique environmental effects that were not adequately evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Negative Declaration has been circulated for public review in compliance with state law, by publication of a notice in the Gilroy Dispatch, transmittal of the documents to the state for publication on CEQAnet, posting of a notice at the Gilroy Public Library and the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office, and publication on the Planning Division webpage for a 30-day minimum review period. The review period for this project was from April 30, 2021 through June 3, 2021. Planning Commission Review: On August 5, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project entitlements, and environmental review document prepared for the project. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of a CEQA Negative Declaration and approval of the project entitlements with specific findings and conditions. Additionally, the Planning Commission included two additional conditions to the Architectural and Site Review approval and requested clarification to a Tentative Map condition. The two conditions added would require: (1) the applicant to provide a pre-loaded Clipper transit card to new owners and (2) limit street trees on Kern Ave. to any species except Crape Myrtle. The Tentative Map condition that clarification relates to what drainage system the project will drain on to. The City Council must consider approval of the tentative map, rezoning and architectural and site review permit requests. ANALYSIS 8.B Packet Pg. 70 The requested land use entitlements (Z 20-06, TM 20-06 and AS 20-20) are proposed to create a residential community within the Neighborhood District High land use area (formerly Medium Density). Approval of a Planned Unit Development zoning overlay is required for the single-family detached, small lot development project. The project compliance with applicable policies and requirements are summarized as follows: 2020 General Plan Consistency: The project application was submitted and deemed complete under the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, the project can proceed subject to compliance with the 2020 General Plan land use policies. Page 4-6 and 4-7 of the 2020 General Plan identify the density anticipated for the Medium Density Residential/MDR designation (attached). The project density of 8.3 dwelling units per acre conforms to the minimum requirements of the 2020 General Plan Medium Density’s designation of 8 to 16 dwelling units per acre. Staff notes that the City uses net acreage to calculate density, which is the area minus roads, right of way, open space areas and/or drainageways. Additional information can be found on the attached Planning Commission Staff report (pg 5). 2040 General Plan Information: Although the project is not covered by the 2040 General Plan, the following information is provided to inform the Council that the project would not constitute a “down zone”. Under the 2040 General Plan, the project is within the Neighborhood High land use designation. This designation applies the following mix of densities to the entire “Neighborhood District High” land use area: Density Ranges 0-7 du/ac 7-9 du/ac 9-16 du/ac 16-30 du/ac Neighborhood District High 60% max. 5% min. 25% min. 10% min. Note: Neighborhood District Percentages are based on land area. The subject parcel falls into the 7-9 dwelling units/acre category. The lowest category (0-7 du/ac) is the only density category that has a maximum percentage. Thus, projects that fall into the higher density categories are encouraged and supported. Due to this, the project would be in compliance with Senate Bill 330 as no loss of density would be occurring. PUD Rezoning: The intent of the PUD Planned Unit Development combining district (sec. 30.26.10) is to provide diversity to development standards (exceptions from base zoning standards) and promote unified planning and development, economical and eff icient land use, a higher standard of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, and an upgrading of the urban environment . While ensuring adequate standards related to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 8.B Packet Pg. 71 PUD Development Standards. The project proposes exceptions to the minimum R3 site development standards. The lots would have reduced front setbacks of 13 to 25.5 feet (instead of 26 feet) and reduced side setbacks are proposed to be a minimum 5’ (instead of 12 feet). Additionally, the project proposes reduced lot sizes from 3,038 to 7,389 sf, instead of the 8,880 sf standard R3 minimum. The development would include private roads and common lot, which would be maintained by a homeowner association. PUD Amenities. The project proposes the following amenities as required for PUD approval, pursuant to Section 30.50.50: • Enhanced project entry feature with precast masonry walls and decorative pavement. • Area to incorporate public art, adjacent to the entry walls, which would be subject to separate submittal for review and approval by the City. • Higher quality of building design with variation in architecture styles, elevations and exterior materials are included. • Higher quality of landscaping design with specific landscaping palettes designed for each respective architectural building styles (e.g. an Architectural “style - specific” plant palette). • Increased open space with a 0.12-acre common/open space including “tot-lot” and two benches. The PUD rezoning may be supported with the exceptions requested, and subject to provision of the higher quality design and amenities proposed. Vesting Tentative Map: The proposed Tentative Map has been evaluated and was found to comply with all applicable City and Subdivision Map Act standards, more details can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff report (pg. 9). Per City Code Section 21.41.(i), initial approval of a tentative map is valid for twenty-four (24) months. Such approval may only be extended at the Council’s discretion. Additionally, Per Chapter 4.5 of the California Subdivision Map Act, the rights conferred by a vesting map shall be valid for 12 months beyond final recordation of the map. Architectural and Site Review: The architectural design and site design/layout has been evaluated pursuant to City code Section 30.50.30. The proposed architectural design, site layout, parking, landscaping, and phasing are found to be in compliance with all applicable standards. A more detailed discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (pg. 11). ALTERNATIVES 8.B Packet Pg. 72 The City Council may, modify or deny the requested applications. Staff does not recommend this action, without the requisite findings as may be required by the Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this action. The developer is responsible for all fees and improvements required to develop the property. NEXT STEPS Upon approval of the recommended actions, the PUD ordinance shall be scheduled for second reading at the next City Council meeting and shall become effective 30 days from adoption. The developer may proceed with submitting a final map within two years of project approval. The City Council must review and approve the subsequent final map prior to its recordation. Upon completion of the final map, the developer may proceed with processing building permits. PUBLIC OUTREACH In accordance with Gilroy City Code, this item was properly notified in the Gilroy Dispatch on August 06, 2021. In addition, notification was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and other interested parties, as requested. Also, the property has been posted with on-site signage informing passerby of pending development, and the City Council public hearing packets are available through the City’s webpage. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 3. Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans 4. The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans 5. The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans 6. The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map 7. The Cottages at Kern Individual Lot Data 8. The Cottages at Kern - Phasing Map 9. Final Negative Declaration 10. Response to Negative Declaration Comments 11. CC Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration 12. CC Ordinance Z 20-06 13. CC Resolution TM 20-06 14. CC Resolution AS 20-20 8.B Packet Pg. 73 City of Gilroy Kern Cottages AS 20-20, TM 20-06 and ZPUD 20-06 Location Map Date:July 15, 2021Drawn By:4,000 Miguel Contreras Checked By:Miguel Contreras1:Sheet:1:1Scale: 8.B.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Location Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Karen L. Garner DIRECTOR Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofgilroy.org DATE: August 5, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Miguel Contreras, Planner I SUBJECT: Architectural and Site Review AS 20-20 (#20090050), Tentative Map TM 20-06 (#20090050), and Planned Unit Development Zoning Amendment Z 20-06 (#20090049) for the Cottages at Kern residential subdivision PUD project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission (Roll Call Vote): a) Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings requ ired by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Z 20-06 as requested, subject to certain findings; and c) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM 20-06, as requested, subject to certain findings; and d) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20 as requested, subject to certain findings and conditions. BACKGROUND: Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site consists of two vacant lots that combined total 3.74-acres. The site is located on the east side of Kern Avenue, south of Tatum Ave and North of Mantelli Dr (Address/APN). Access to the site is proposed from Kern Avenue. LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Vacant Neighborhood District High Medium Density Residential / 8.B.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 2 LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Planned Unit Development (R3 PUD) North 2 Rural Residential, 1 Vacant lot Neighborhood District High County Zoning A-20 South GUSD FFA Farm Neighborhood District High County Zoning A-20 East Rural Residential Neighborhood District High County Zoning A-20 West Multiple Single Family Residential Low Density Single Family Residential (R1) In 2006, the City Council approved development of the site with 53 townhomes (by Resolutions 2016-17, 2016-18 and Ordinance No. 2016-06). This included a General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Medium Density Residential, applications AS 06- 09 and TM 06-03, and PUD Z 06-04 to rezone the subject site from Single Family Residential (R1) to Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development (R3 PUD). Development was not pursued and as a result the Tentative Map and Architectural and Sit approvals expired. However, the PUD rezone and MDR general plan amendments remained in effect as these consisted of legislative decisions. On August 13, 2020, a pre-application was submitted for the current project. The applicant submitted formal applications that incorporated most of the comments received from the pre-application. On October 29, 2020 the application submittal was deemed complete for processing. This application was complete prior to adoption of the 2040 General Plan (November 4, 2020). Therefore, because the proposal was complete under the 2020 General Plan development can proceed under those land use policies. Environmental Assessment: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study was prepared to evaluate any potentially significant adverse effects of the proposed project on the environment. The 2040 General Plans land use and density range covers the same type and intensity of development anticipated in a Medium Density Residential land use category. CEQA allows use for tiering where a project specific impact has been adequately evaluated by a prior environmental document. Therefore, this project is being “tiered” from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2015082014) prepared for the recently adopted 2040 General Plan. The Negative Declaration (SCH#2021060179) was circulated and made available for public review by publication of a notice in the Gilroy Dispatch, transmittal of the document to the state for publication on CEQAnet, posting of a notice at the Gilroy Public Library and Santa Clara County Recorders office, and publication on the Planning Division webpage for a 30 day minimum review period. The review period for 8.B.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 3 this project was from April 30, 2021 through June 3, 2021. Comments on the draft environmental document were received from the following: 1. Valley Transit Authority 2. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) 3. Vanessa Ashford, Gilroy Citizen and Chair of the City of Gilroy Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC) 4. Patrick Flautt, Gilroy Citizen and Chair of the City of Gilroy, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) 5. Brian Barnacle, Out-think, LLC Please note that the letters from Ms. Ashford and Mr. Flautt can only be considered as comments from members of the public. The HNRC and the BPC did not consider this item or review the letters at a public meeting and therefore should not be considered an official action by the HNRC or BPAC. Comments on a negative declaration must be considered. Written responses have been provided, and the following minor changes have been incorporated into the Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration: • Biologic Resources – Typographic correction to Section 4.f deleting an incorrect project area (See page 31). • Transportation and Mobility – Provided additional information on VTA bus lines near the project section in Section 17.a (See page 67). The comment letters, responses, and updated Negative Declaration are attached to this report. In summary, the comments and responses are as follows: 1. Valley Transit Authority (VTA) disagrees that the subject site is not directly served by transit and encourages the City to incorporate specific enforceable measures to reduce VMT and promote the use of transit. In response, staff has noted that distance between the project site and the closest bus stops is such that the project site is not directly served by transit service at regular intervals that would satisfy the requirement for TDM/VMT impacts. Additionally, the City has not established specific TDM/VMT reduction programs that can be applied to the project. The City may suggest, or the applicant may propose TDM measures appropriate for a small- scale project such as this, e.g., contributing to e-bike program or providing transit passes. However, this is not recommended in the absence of a Citywide program or strategy to implement and monitor this activity. 2. The Santa Clara Valley Water District noted all runoff should continue to flow southeasterly into Upper Miller Slough and not into Lions Creek. Staff has noted that project will be required to provide a detailed analysis of drainage which will assure the project complies with City drainage standards. The Project will contain improvements to comply with NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit which regulates discharges into the watershed with the intent to reduce storm water pollution and protect the water quality of our local creeks and waterways and continue to promote groundwater recharge. The City Public Works Department has evaluated the additional flows to Lions Creek and determined that there is sufficient channel capacity to contain the additional flows. Since both Lions Creek and Miller Slough 8.B.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 4 are tributaries to Llagas Creek (which is itself a tributary to the Pajaro River), the overall effect of this change is minimal. No corrections or changes are necessary to the Initial Study. 3. Vanessa Ashford disagreed with the proposed small lot single family development since more market and affordable units could also be constructed with a multi- family attached development. Staff has noted that the proposed project substantially satisfies the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and that no changes would be required to address any project related environmental impact. 4. Patrick Flautt commented VMT reductions measures could potentially reduce project impacts. However, staff has concluded that the mitigations listed are infeasible to implement since the City does not have any established programs and such measures would be unimplementable and unenforceable. Like response 1, the City could request, or the applicant could volunteer additional TDM measures, but it is not considered necessary nor appropriate to apply these suggested additional requirements to the Project. However, the project is required to provide an interim all-weather walkway improvement to connect the site to improved walkways and intersections in the City (until such time as formal sidewalks can be installed). This will help contribute to TDM/VMT goals by increasing pedestrian connectivity. 5. Brian Barnacles, Out-Think, LLC commented e-bikes could reduce VMT and suggested a current pilot program funded by Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority be expanded to the City; which would be to provide 152 e-bikes in and around the City would mitigate all VMT generated by the project. The estimated cost of this mitigation would be $481,060.00. However, funding would need to be identified during the approval process, which is beyond the scope of this project. As noted previously, the City has no TDM/VMT programs in place to that could be applied to a residential project of this scale. No further changes to the ND are required. The comments identified no additional significant adverse environmental effects that would warrant mitigation, beyond those already identified in the Gilroy 2040 General Plan EIR. As proposed and conditioned the project would implement applicable General Plan policies and programs intended to reduce environmental impacts. Thus, staff supports findings to review and recommend adoption of the negative declaration prepared for this project. ANALYSIS: 2020 General Plan Consistency: As mentioned above, the project application was submitted and deemed complete under the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, the project can proceed subject to compliance with the 2020 General Plan land use policies. Page 4-6 and 4-7 of the 2020 General Plan identify the density anticipated for the Medium Density Residential/MDR designation (attached). The project density of 8.3 dwelling units per acre conforms to the minimum requirements of the 2020 General Plan Medium Density’s designation of 8 to 16 dwelling units per acre. Staff notes that the City uses net acreage to calculate density, which is the area minus roads, right of way, open 8.B.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 5 space areas and/or drainageways. GP 2020 Land Use Designation: The MDR description further states: This designation encourages residential development with a mini- mum site area of 2,722.5 square feet per unit and maximum site area of 5,445 square feet per unit. It is intended primarily for multi-family structures (duplexes, townhomes, condominiums, apartment buildings) but can also contain single family detached homes, with or without secondary units. Buildings are typically two -stories tall and are usually located in transition areas between lower density neighborhoods and higher density developments or commercial areas. They are also usually located on or near Arterials or Collector streets and near neighborhood facilities such as a school or park. Compatible non-residential uses include religious facilities, day care and group care facilities, schools, and parks. Based on the MDR description staff suggested that the project should be revised to include attached housing, or a mix of multi- and single-family units. The applicant proceeded with a small lot single-family development product which would meet the MDR density and the applicant objective to propose detached ownership housing. The MDR designation allows flexibility to allow detached residential product, which would be compatible with the existing detached residential development along Kern. GP 2020 Policies: The relevant 2020 General Plan policies have also been evaluated for the project as follows: POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS 1.01 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 These policies encourage development that enhances the quality of existing neighborhoods and maximize existing infrastructure and services. The proposed project would be both consistent with the surrounding residential uses and aesthetically enhance the existing neighborhood. In addition, existing utility infrastructure exists to serve development of the site. 1.05 Existing Neighborhoods. Maintain and enhance the quality of existing residential neighborhoods. 2.01 Location of Growth. Maximize existing infrastructure and service investments by directing new growth to vacant and under- utilized lands within the Urban Service Area (USA). 2040 General Plan Information: Although the project is not covered by the 2040 General Plan, the following information is provided to inform the Planning Com mission of the differences between the 2020 General Plan and 2040 General Plan as applied to this site. Under the 2040 General Plan, the project is within the Neighborhood High land use designation. This designation applies the following mix of densities to the entire 8.B.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 6 “Neighborhood District High” land use area: Density Ranges 0-7 du/ac 7-9 du/ac 9-16 du/ac 16-30 du/ac Neighborhood District High 60% max. 5% min. 25% min. 10% min. Note: Neighborhood District Percentages are based on land area. Except for this parcel and two other previously developed parcels, all remaining land designated “Neighborhood District” are outside of the city and its urban service areas. If the project were evaluated under the NDH designation, a Master Plan would be required that would include an analysis of the Density Range table above. Connectivity with the NDH area might also be requested. However, as noted above this site is already within the City and can be processed under the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, it is considered appropriate and consistent with state housing law to develop the site in compliance with the 2020 General Plan MDR designation. It is also worth noting that residential development projects must comply with no net loss requirement in the state Senate Bill SB 330. Thus, when considering a request to reduce density of a project, the City must replace any loss in density somewhere else within the City. However, this project does not involve any downzoning. While the property is permitted to develop under the 2020 General Plan land use designation, it is also true that the 8.3 units per acre density remains compatible with the 2040 General Plan Density Ranges table. The subject parcel falls into the 7-9 dwelling units/acre category. The lowest category (0-7 du/ac) is the only density category that has a MAXIMUM percentage. Thus, projects that fall into the higher density categories are encouraged and supported. Development of the subject property will not result in a reduction in overall anticipate density of the NDH properties. Conformance with Zoning Code Development Standards: The project is zoned Medium Density Residential (R3) PUD. The proposal may be permitted with a Zone Change for a Planned Unit Development, Tentative Map, and Architectural and S ite Review. The Planned Unit Development overlay is required to permit the following exceptions to the minimum R3 zoning site development standards: STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS? Minimum Lot Size 8,880 sq. feet (accommodates multi-family units in the R3 zone) Range from 3,038 sf to 7,389. Most lots are between 3,500- 4,500 sf. PUD required for individual small residential lots. Maximum Building Height 45’ Plan 1 – 25’-8” Plan 2 – 26’-6” Plan 3 – 24’-6” Yes 8.B.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 7 STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS? Minimum Front Yard Setback 26’ from face of curb 26’ minimum (on Kern Ave, ROW) 13’ minimum (on internal lots) PUD required for reduced street setback. Side (adjacent to Street) 21’ from face of curb 21’ Minimum (on Kern Ave, ROW) 10’ Minimum (internal Streets) PUD required for reduced exterior side setback from internal streets. Side 12’ 5’ PUD required for small lot setbacks Rear 15’ 15’ Yes Length of Driveway (from back of Walk to garage) 18’ 20’ Yes Parking 58 stalls required (for single-family). Two (2) stalls per dwelling unit, one (1) of which shall be a covered carport or garage Each space must be at least ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet). 76 stalls proposed: 29 two car garage stalls (18’ x 20’ dimension) 29 tandem driveway stalls 18 on-street” guest” parking stalls. PUD required for reduced two car garage dimensions, with tandem driveway parking and on- street guest. *Development Standards identified in italics denote deviations from City standards being requested pursuant to Section 30.50.50 of the Gilroy City Code for the Planned Unit Development design. Planned Unit Development (Z 20-06) Analysis: The PUD ordinance Statement of Intent (sec. 30.26.10) also requires the following: The intent of the PUD Planned Unit Development combining district is to allow diversification in the relationships of buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and the allowable heights of said buildings and structures, while ensuring adequate standards related to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. By allowing this diversification, the PUD planned unit development combining district intends to promote unified planning and development, economical and efficient land use, a higher standard of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, and an upgrading of the urban environment." PUD Deviations: The PUD combining district provides opportunity for projects to deviate 8.B.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8 from City Code where justified. The project requests deviations from city minimum residential lot sizes, setbacks standards and parking space dimensions as discussed in the architectural and site review section of this staff report. PUD Amenities: The applicant proposes the following amenities to support the PUD application request: ✓ Enhanced project entry with precast masonry walls and decorative pavement. ✓ Areas are identified adjacent to the entry walls to incorporate public art. ✓ Variation in architecture styles, elevations and exterior materials are included. ✓ Extensive landscaping throughout the development is included with specific landscaping plant palettes designed for the respective architectural building styles (e.g. an Architectural “style-specific” plant palette). ✓ 0.12 acres of common/open space including “tot-lot” and two benches. PUD Findings: GCC Section 30.50.50(d) establishes the following findings for a PUD approval. Staff has evaluated each of the nine findings required to support a PUD request, and based on the discussion herein has made the following determinations: 1. “The project conforms to the Gilroy General Plan in terms of general location and standards of development.” The proposed project was within the Medium Density 2020 General Plan land use designation. This designation is intended primarily for multi-family structures but can also contain single family detached homes, with or without secondary units provided that the development falls within the 8 -16 du/acre density range. The proposed project is within the Neighborhood District High 2040 General Plan land use designation. The purpose of this designation is to encourage compact, complete neighborhood-style development. Traditional single-family uses will comprise a substantial portion of these districts. This land use designation establishes what percentages of density ranges will compose the Neighborhood District High land use area. The project falls within the 7 -9 du/ac density range and contributes to achieving the minimum 5% (0.78%) of land area designated for this density category 2. “The project provides the type of development that will fill a specific need of the surrounding area.” The project provides a gradation in transitioning from the exiting Single Family Residential (R1) that is west of the subject site into the higher density neighborhood district that is east of the subject site. While the project does not propose attached dwellings, it does propose a higher density than what a typical Single-Family neighborhood. 3. “The project will not require urban services beyond those that are currently available.” All utilities needed to serve the project are located along Kern Avenue adjacent to the property. 4. “The project provides a harmonious, integrated plan that justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the normal requirements of this ordinance.” The project provides a harmonious, integrated plan using landscaping and three distinct, yet harmonious, architectural styles. 8.B.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 9 5. “The project reflects an economical and efficient pattern of land uses.” T he project maximizes density despite calling for detached single -family homes, thereby creating an economical and efficient pattern of land uses. 6. “The project includes greater provisions for landscaping and open space than would generally be required.” All lots provide at least a combined 48% landscape/open recreation areas. In addition to this the project proposes a 5,316 square foot (0.12 acre) open space area. 7. “The project utilizes aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and open space areas that blend with the character of surrounding areas.” T he developer has proposed three (3) architectural styles for the single-family residential units, as well as using attractive landscaping within the development and along Kern Avenue. As requested by City Staff, the developer has enhanced the street-facing portions of the development facing Kern Ave. This includes, masonry walls at the entrance of the development, enhanced side elevations for the dwellings that can be seen from the right-of-way and the minimum 26’ front yard setback is met. 8. “Not create traffic congestion, noise, odor, or other adverse effect on surrounding areas.” The project is designed so as not to create any traffic congestion, noise, odor, or other adverse effect on surrounding areas. 9. “The project provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary.” The project provides adequate access from Kern Ave. In addition to the required two-stalls per dwelling unit, the project also offers 18 additional on-street parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a “Will Serve” letter from Recology, the City waste hauler. Tentative Map (TM 20-06) Analysis: 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 map is reviewed for orderly development based on the following primary aspects: A. Site Layout: The subject site is approximately 3.74 acres and proposes 29 residential lots on 2.79 acres, 0.12 acres of common open space and 0.82 acres of public and private streets. The proposed layout has been found to provide an orderly lot pattern. B. Lot Sizes: The proposed lots would range in size from 3,038 square feet to 7,389 square feet; with the majority of lots ranging between 3,500 and 4,500 square feet. The applicant has provided building designs that demonstrate the lots can be developed with detached units. C. Density: The project’s density of 8.83 units per acre provides the minimum zoning and general plan density. D. Circulation: The project site would take access off Kern Ave. Five (5) lots would take direct access from Kern Ave. and the remaining 24 lots would front the private street 8.B.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 10 and an alley internal to the project. The City Street Naming Task Force selected Barton Way and Wickham Court as street names for the project. The circulation plan has been evaluated and deemed adequate by Engineering, Fire and Police. Future connectivity with the NDH areas to the east was not deemed necessary for this small in-fill project. Further, the project has been conditioned to provide pedestrian connections from the site to the south and/or north. E. Open Space: The project proposes 0.12 acres of open/common space. This communal space would only have internal access and would be for private use only. This space would feature a 4-foot walkway, play structure, two (2) benches and would be landscaped. This amenity is supported and considered appropriate to meet the needs of this small-scale residential development. F. Off-Site Improvements: The site is currently served by all utilities. No new public streets or street extensions would be required for the project. The project proposes sidewalk along the Kern Ave. frontage. Sidewalk would not immediately connect to sidewalks north and south of the site since there are not existing sidewalks in those areas. However, an asphalt all weather path connection will be required as an interim improvement to be located within existing street right of way along the east side of Kern Ave. As new development occurs a fully improved sidewalk would be constructed. G. Property Dedications and Easements: The tentative map will incorporate all required access and easements necessary to serve the site and all required frontage improvements are proposed and conditioned for this development. TM Findings: Pursuant to Section 21 of City code and Section 66474 of the Government Code, and based on the discussion in this report, staff recommends the following required findings can be made to support the tentat ive map request: 1. The proposed Tentative Map and with proposed improvement and site grading would not subject the site to undue flooding or inundation. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act. 3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed project are available and adjacent to the site. 4. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general plan as specified in Sect ion 65451. 5. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 6. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 7. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 8. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or/and injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 9. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. 10. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8.B.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 11 Based on the analysis in this report, staff supports a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission, subject to the detailed findings and recommended conditions provided in the draft TM 20-06 resolution attached to this staff report. Architectural and Site Review (AS 20-20) Analysis: Pursuant to GCC Section 30.50.43, the project has been evaluated for compliance with the following applicable standards: A. Architectural Design: The project proposes three (3) floor plans. “Plan 1” would be a three (3) bedroom, two (2) bathroom, 1,519 square foot two-story dwelling with a 19’X20’6” attached garage. “Plan 2” would be a four (4) bedroom, three (3) bathroom, 1,769 square foot, two-story dwelling with an 18’8”X20’4” attached garage. “Plan 3” would be a four (4) bedroom, three (3) bathroom 1,917 square foot two-story dwelling with a 19’X20’ attached garage. Three (3) architectural styles have been utilized for this 29-lot community. “Spanish,” “Farmhouse,” and “Traditional.” Each architectural style has been differentiated using materials and certain design features including siding, window trims (headers and sills, shutter style, garage door style, front entry style, overhang depth, column style. Each style is intended to be readily distinguished from the other. The “Spanish” style would feature stucco siding, stucco over foam trim, decorative tile vents, foam shutters, low profile “S” tile roofing and a 12 -inch overhang. The “Traditional” style would feature stucco siding, horizontal lap wood siding, foam shutters, tile gutter, and a slate roof profile with an 18-inch overhang. The “Farmhouse” style would feature stucco siding, board and batten siding, foam shutters and a slate roof profile with 12-inch overhang. B. Parking: City Code (sec. 30.31.31) parking standards require two (2) stalls per dwelling unit, one (1) of which shall be a covered carport or garage (each space must be at least ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet). Minimum standard commercial parking spaces dimensions are nine by eighteen feet (9x18). The increased dimensions for covered spaces provide for easier access around a vehicle in an enclosed space. The project proposes to comply with the numerical parking standards, subject to reduced parking dimensions; with each lot having an 18’X20’ attached garage (covered) and 18’X20’ driveway (uncovered). In addition to this, the project proposes 18 on-street parking spots, including seven (7) on Kern Ave. The reduced parking dimensions would continue to accommodate two side by side parking spaces. C. Landscaping/Fencing: Project plans include extensive landscaping on all proposed lots. Each architectural style will have its own plant pallet to offer verity throughout the development. The project features a landscape walking path that leads to the communal area. 8.B.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 12 Kern Ave. will be improved with nine (9) new street trees (Crape Myrtle) and will have a total of 16 new trees fronting the street. Each lot will be improved with at least one (1) tree and the project features a seven (7) tree palettes. This project will be subject to the City’s MWELO requirements, and a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the requisite landscaping documentation as part of their building permit and improvement plan submittals. Each lot’s backyard would be enclosed with a six (6) foot tall redwood, board on board, fence with kickboard and 2”X6” cap. The common area will be secured with tubular steel fence and self-closing gate. The three lots (lots #1, 6 and 29) whose backyard can be seen from Kern Ave. will feature a split-face masonry wall with ornamental cap. E. Signs: There are no free-standing signs proposed. F. Phasing: The project is proposed to be constructed in four (4) phases. Phase one would involve construction of two model homes and a temporary parking lot within the site. Homes would be built out in blocks of 12 units within the site. The project proposes to construct the three final units fronting on Kern Ave last. A condition of approval is recommended to require the open space amenity and internal streets be completed prior to occupancy of the twelfth unit and that construction of the lots on Kern Avenue shall be completed prior to occupancy of the last three units which shall be located on interior lots. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Pursuant to the City policies and Tentative Map requirements, the project was distributed for consideration by various departments and utility agencies including City Engineering, Parks, Building, Police, and Fire as well as Gilroy Unified School District and Valley Water. Recommendations of advisory agencies have been incorporated into the project plans and/or are included as recommended conditions in attached resolution(s). Public Noticing: Property owner information for parcels within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by First American Title Company using current ownership data. On July 15, 2021 (at least 10 days prior to this August 5 th hearing), notices of this Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners along within other interested parties. In addition, a notice was published in the Gilroy Dispatch and the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying of pending development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage. On July 19, 2021, the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department submitted comments on the project that were discussed in the Tentative Map Circulation discussion above. If further comments are received staff will provide an update at the hearing. Appeal Procedure: The Planning Commission's action is not final, but rather a recommendation to the City Council. Next Steps: 8.B.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 13 The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council to consider at a future public hearing. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. The Cottages at Kern- Civil 3. Cottages At Kern - Arch 4. KernAvenue-Landscape 5. The Cottages at Kern VTM 6. Final IS+ND 7. Response to IS-ND Comments 8. SCC Parks and Rec comments for Tentative Map 9. Kern Cottages Individual Lot Data 10. The Cottages at Kern - Phasing Map 11. Z 20-06 Resolution 12. TM 20-06 PC Resolution 13. AS 20-20 Resolution 8.B.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report, August 5, 2021 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP0 1 2 4 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN (662 S.F., 1519 TOTAL S.F.) 2-BAY GARAGE 19'-0"x 20'-6" 34'-0"37'-0"COATS PWDR. 14'-0" x 13'-6" GREAT ROOM 29'-0"8'-0"FAMILY DINING 14'-0" x 11'-0" KITCHEN COVERED PORCH ENTRY PANT. A/C DNSECOND FLOOR PLAN (857 S.F.) LAUNDRY BATH #2 BATH #1WALK-IN BEDROOM #3 10'-0" x 12'-4" BEDROOM #2 10'-0" x 11'-4" BEDROOM #1LINEN 12'-8" x 13'-0" THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-2PLAN 1 (234-1519) 8.B.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) DNTHE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-3AAAA PLAN 1 Kern Ave . 9-11-20 5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 6:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKESTYP.TYP.TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"25'-8"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "A" REAR "A" LEFT SIDE "A" ROOF PLAN "A" FRONT ELEVATION "A" (SPANISH) SPANISH STUCCO SIDING STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM DECORATIVE TILE VENTS DECORATIVE FOAM SHUTTERS TILE GUTTER CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - LOW PROFILE "S" 12" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. PLAN 1 6:126:125:125:12 RIDGE RVALLEYV A L L E Y 4:12 4:12 RIDGESIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE VALLEYVALLEY5:12 8.B.c Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) FARMHOUSE •STUCCO SIDING •STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM •BOARD & BATTEN SIDING •DECORATIVE SHUTTERS •THEME SPECIFIC GARAGE DOOR •CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - "SLATE" PROFILE •12" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-4FRONT ELEVATION "B" (FARMHOUSE) PLAN 1 DNROOF PLAN "B"5:125:12RIDGE RIDGE 5:125:12SIDEYARD FENCELINE BBBB5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES PLAN 1 Kern Ave . 9-11-20 TYP.TYP.TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"25'-6"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "B" REAR "B" LEFT SIDE "B" AT LOT 6 PROVIDE BOARD & BATT AT GABLE END (SHOWN DASHED) SIDEYARD FENCELINE AT LOT 6 PROVIDE FOAM SHUTTERS (SHOWN DASHED) 8.B.c Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-5PLAN 1 CCCC5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKESTYP.TYP.TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"PLAN 1 Kern Ave . 9-11-2025'-8"RIDGE 25'-8"TRADITIONAL STUCCO SIDING STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM HORIZONTAL LAP WOOD SIDING DECORATIVE SHUTTERS TILE GUTTER CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - "SLATE" PROFILE 18" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP.DN6:126:12RIDGE RVALLEY5:12HIPHIP5:125:12HIPSIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE FRONT ELEVATION "C" (TRADITIONAL) ROOF PLAN "C" RIGHT SIDE "C" REAR "C" LEFT SIDE "C" 5:12 5:12 AT LOT 9 & 29 PROVIDE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING & WOOD BRACKET AT GABLE END (SHOWN DASHED) AT LOT 9 & 29 PROVIDE FOAM SHUTTERS (SHOWN DASHED) V A L L E Y 8.B.c Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.c Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP0 1 2 4 8 TOTAL S.F.)(726 S.F.;FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1769 2-BAY GARAGE 18'-8"x 20'-4" 34'-0"37'-6"POWDER OWNER'S ENTRY ENTRY 14'-4" x 17'-0" GREAT ROOM FAMILY DINING 10'-0" x 10'-4" KITCHEN PANTRY OPTIONAL ISLAND COATS COVERED PORCH STORAGE34'-0"3'-6"31'-6"6'-0"A/C DN2x6 SECOND FLOOR PLAN (1043 S.F.) LAUNDRY BATH #2 BATH #1 BEDROOM #2 12'-0" x 10'-0" BEDROOM #3 BEDROOM #1 15'-0" x 12'-8" 12'-0" x 10'-0" BEDROOM #4 10'-4" x 10'-0"LINENWALK- IN THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-7PLAN 2 ( )234-1769 8.B.c Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) DN2x6 THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-8AAAA 5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 6:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKESTYP.TYP.TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"PLAN 2 Villages of Fairfield II 7-5-1926'-6"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "A" REAR "A" LEFT SIDE "A" ROOF PLAN "A" FRONT ELEVATION "A" (SPANISH) PLAN 2 RIDGEVALLEY5:12 5:12HIP4:125:12 HIPRID.5:12SIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE HIPHIPSPANISH STUCCO SIDING STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM DECORATIVE TILE VENTS DECORATIVE FOAM SHUTTERS TILE GUTTER CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - LOW PROFILE "S" 12" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. 8.B.c Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-9DN2x6 BBBB 5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 6:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKESTYP.TYP.TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"PLAN 2 KERN AVE. 9-14-2026'-6"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "B" REAR "B" LEFT SIDE "B" ROOF PLAN "B" FRONT ELEVATION "B" PLAN 2 RIDGEVALLEY5:12 5:12HIP5:125:12 HIPRIDGE5:12 SIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE (FARMHOUSE) FARMHOUSE •STUCCO SIDING •STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM •BOARD & BATTEN SIDING •DECORATIVE SHUTTERS •THEME SPECIFIC GARAGE DOOR •CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - "SLATE" PROFILE •12" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. 8.B.c Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-10DN2x6 CCCC 5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 6:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES PLAN 2 Villages of Fairfield II 7-5-19 TYP.TYP.TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"26'-6"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "C" REAR "C" LEFT SIDE "C" ROOF PLAN "C" FRONT ELEVATION "C" (TRADITIONAL)RIDGEVALLEY5:12 HIPHIP5:125:12HIP5:125:12 5:12 HIPRHIPPLAN 2 SIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE TRADITIONAL STUCCO SIDING STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM HORIZONTAL LAP WOOD SIDING DECORATIVE SHUTTERS TILE GUTTER CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - "SLATE" PROFILE 18" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. 8.B.c Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.c Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP0 1 2 4 8 TOTAL S.F.)(901 S.F.;FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1917 2-BAY GARAGE 19'-0"x 20'-0" 36'-0"41'-0"BATH #3 O.E. KITCHEN PANTRY OPT. ISLAND COATS ENTRY BEDROOM #4 STORAGE FAMILY DINING 10'-0" x 13'-0" 15'-0" x 13'-0" GREAT ROOM 34'-0"7'-0"11'-4" x 11'-0" A/C DNSECOND FLOOR PLAN (1016 S.F.) LAUNDRY BATH #2 BATH #1WALK- IN BEDROOM #2 10'-4" x 13'-10" BEDROOM #1 16'-0" x 13'-0" LINEN BEDROOM #3 13'-0" x 10'-0" THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-12PLAN 3 ( )236-1917 8.B.c Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) DNTHE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-13AAAA PLAN 1 Villages II 7-5-19 5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 6:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 3:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"24'-8"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "A" REAR "A" LEFT SIDE "A" ROOF PLAN "A" FRONT ELEVATION "A" (SPANISH) PLAN 3 SIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE 5:125:124:12 4:12 RIDGE RIDGEVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPHIPVALLEYRID.RIDGERID.4:12 5:12 5:12 TYP.TYP. SPANISH STUCCO SIDING STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM DECORATIVE TILE VENTS DECORATIVE FOAM SHUTTERS TILE GUTTER CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - LOW PROFILE "S" 12" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. 8.B.c Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-14DNBBBB PLAN 3 Kern Ave . 7-5-19 5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 3:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"24'-6"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "B" REAR "B" LEFT SIDE "B" ROOF PLAN "B" FRONT ELEVATION "B" PLAN 3 SIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE 5:125:125:12 RIDGE RIDGEVALLEYVALLEYRIDGE5:12 5:12 TYP.TYP. 5:12 (FARMHOUSE) FARMHOUSE •STUCCO SIDING •STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM •BOARD & BATTEN SIDING •DECORATIVE SHUTTERS •THEME SPECIFIC GARAGE DOOR •CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - "SLATE" PROFILE •12" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. 8.B.c Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN 2006 Gilroy, California 9-23-20 940 Tyler Street #19 Benicia, CA 94510 Phone: (707) 746-6586 REV. 10-22-20 SHEET A-15DNDNDNUPUPDNUPDNFIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" (ELEVATION "B") FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" (ELEVATION "C") FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/4" (ELEVATION "B") SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/4" (ELEVATION "C") SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/4" (ELEVATION "A")(ELEVATION "A") PLAN 3 VILLAGES 10-15-20 A/C A/C A/C CCCC5:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES 4:12 ROOF PITCH/OGEE GUTTER/FASCIA AT RAKES PLAN 3 KERN AVE. 9-15-20 TOP PL TOP PL T.O. PLY T.O. CURB 9'-1"8'-1"24'-6"RIDGE RIGHT SIDE "C" REAR "C" LEFT SIDE "C" ROOF PLAN "C" FRONT ELEVATION "C" (TRADITIONAL) PLAN 3 SIDEYARD FENCELINE SIDEYARD FENCELINE 5:125:125:12 RIDGE RIDGEVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPVALLEYRIDGERID.5:12 5:12 TYP.TYP.HIPHIPVAL.TRADITIONAL STUCCO SIDING STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM HORIZONTAL LAP WOOD SIDING DECORATIVE SHUTTERS TILE GUTTER CONCRETE TILE ROOFING - "SLATE" PROFILE 18" ROOF OVERHANG, TYP. 8.B.c Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Cottages At Kern Arhitectural Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CPARCEL ACOMMONOPENSPACEKERN AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)ST. CLAR AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)1452362992422161514132827262523212019181712781011PARCEL BWICKHAM COURT (PRIVATE STREET)BARTON WAY(PRIVATE STREET)WICKHAM COURT(PRIVATE)KERN AVENUE WREN AVENUETATUM AVENUEMANTELLI DR IVE CITY OF GILROY LIMITSPROJECTSITEARCHITECTURAL & SITE REVIEW/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTTHE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALIFORNIAPROJECT TEAMOWNERS:CRC KERN INVESTORS, LLC.ST FRANCIS INVESTMENT IIIAPPLICANT:D.R. HORTON6683 OWENS DRIVE PLEASANTON, CA 94588CONTACT: CHRIS ZABALLOS(510) 506-3750, CPZABALLOS@DRHORTON.COMCIVIL ENGINEER & PLANNER:RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR8055 CAMINO ARROYO, GILROY CA 95020CONTACT ENGINEER: JIM SCHUL, P.E. RCE#CONTACT PLANNER: ROSS DOYLE(408) 848-0300, JSCHUL@RJA-GPS.COM & RDOYLE@RJA-GPS.COMARCHITECT:OAG ARCHITECTS, INC.940 TAYLOR STREET, #19 BENICIA, CA 94510CONTACT: NANCY NELSON(707) 746-6586, NNELSON@OAGARCHITECTS.COMLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:RIPLEY DESIGN GROUP1615 BONANZA STREET, SUITE 314, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596CONTACT: ANNIKA CARPENTER(925) 938-7436, ACARPENTER@RIPLEYDESIGN.COMVICINITY MAPPROJECT INFORMATION 1. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 790-17-002 & 790-17-0032. ADDRESS: 9130 & 9160 KERN AVENUE, GILROY3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 29 SINGLE-FAMILYHOMES WITH ASSOCIATED ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS.4. PRESENT LAND USE: VACANT5. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL6. EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT: R3-PUD7. PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: R3-PUD8. GROSS SITE AREA: ±3.73 AC9. NET SITE AREA: ±2.91 AC10. BUILDING AREA: 29 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ±2.79 ACPRIVATE STREETS (BARTON WAY & WICKHAM COURT) ±0.49 ACWICKHAM COURT (PARCEL B) ±0.09 ACPUBLIC STREET (KERN AVENUE) ±0.24 ACCOMMON OPEN SPACE (PARCEL A) ±0.12 ACTOTAL ±3.73 AC11. NET DENSITY: 9.97 DU/AC12. BUILDING COVERAGE: ±34,679 SF (21.3%)13. LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: ±71,722 SF (±44.0%)14. PARKING & DRIVE AISLES COVERAGE: ±21,121 SF (±12.9%)15. HARDSCAPE COVERAGE: ±35,656 SF (±21.9%)16. UTILITIES:WATER CITY OF GILROYGAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRICSANITARY SEWER CITY OF GILROYSTORM DRAIN CITY OF GILROYTELEPHONE VERIZONCABLE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS17. THE PROJECT LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X - OTHER FLOOD AREA DEFINED AS AREAS OF0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREA OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGEDEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE;AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD (FIRM MAP06085C0639H, EFFECTIVE DATE MAY 18, 2009).18. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN IS BASED ON AN AERIAL SURVEY DATEDMARCH 16, 2020 PREPARED BY RADMAN. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ON THIS PLANREPRESENT GROUND ELEVATIONS AS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF SAID SURVEY.19. PARCEL A, STREET LANDSCAPING, AND PARCEL B (WICKHAM COURT) WITHIN THEPROJECT DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A HOMEOWNERASSOCIATION OR A SIMILAR ENTITY.GENERAL NOTES1. THE PROPOSED STREET NAMES DEPICTED HEREIN ARE PRELIMINARY ANDSUBJECT TO CHANGE.2. FLOOR PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.3. LOT NUMBERS ARE FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED ASFINAL.4. CERTIFICATION OF GRADES AND SOIL COMPACTION REQUIRED PRIOR TOBUILDING PERMIT FINAL.5. ALL FUTURE BUILDINGS SHALL BE SPRINKLERED FOR FIRE SAFETY PER THECITY OF GILROY FIRE AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.6. ALL RETAINING WALLS (IF REQUIRED) SHALL BE MASONRY AND SHALL BE AMODULAR SYSTEM AND/OR CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE WITH A DECORATIVESURFACING. ALL SITE RETAINING WALLS ARE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING DIVISIONS. WOODWALLS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.7. PROPOSED PIPE SIZES, SLOPES, AND ELEVATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY ANDSUBJECT TO REFINEMENT DURING FINAL DESIGN.8. ALL WORK IS TO BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF GILROYSPECIFICATION STANDARDS AND DESIGN CRITERIA AND IS SUBJECT TO ALLLAWS OF THIS COMMUNITY BY REFERENCE.9. TRANSFORMERS AND SPLICE BOXES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.10. CERTIFICATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE PLANS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TOBUILDING FINAL.11. ALL GRADING WILL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONSAND CONDITIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S REPORTS REGARDINGTHIS PROJECT.12. PROPOSED GRADES AS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. FINAL GRADES ARE SUBJECTTO FINAL DESIGN.13. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THECRITERIA AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF GILROY.14. GRADING, SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS, AND UTILITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL ANDARE SUBJECT TO REVISION AND CITY APPROVAL DURING FINAL DESIGN.15. IF THE PROJECT HAS EXCESS FILL OR CUT THAT WILL BE ON OR OFF-HAULED TOA SITE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF GILROY, AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT ISREQUIRED.16. ALL UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN BARTON WAY, WICKHAM COURT AND PARCELB (WICKHAM COURT) ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED.17. ALL VEGETATION WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT TREESNOTED TO REMAIN ON AS&PUD-02.SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 TITLE SHEETAS&PUD-01W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-01 TITLE SHEET.DWG PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWSHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEAS&PUD-01TITLE SHEETAS&PUD-02EXISTING CONDITIONSAS&PUD-03SITE PLANAS&PUD-04DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSAS&PUD-05PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANAS&PUD-06PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANAS&PUD-07PRELIMINARY SWC PLANT-1TYPICAL STREETSCENEA-1PLAN 1 COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONSA-2PLAN 1 FLOOR PLANA-3PLAN 1 ELEVATION "A" SPANISHA-4PLAN 1 ELEVATION "B" FARMHOUSEA-5PLAN 1 ELEVATION "C" TRADITIONALA-6PLAN 2 COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONSA-7PLAN 2 FLOOR PLANA-8PLAN 2 ELEVATION "A" SPANISHA-9PLAN 2 ELEVATION "B" FARMHOUSEA-10PLAN 2 ELEVATION "C" TRADITIONALA-11PLAN 3 COLORED FRONT ELEVATIONSA-12PLAN 3 FLOOR PLANA-13PLAN 3 ELEVATION "A" SPANISHA-14PLAN 3 ELEVATION "B" FARMHOUSEA-15PLAN 3 ELEVATION "C" TRADITIONALL-1PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANL-2PRELIMINARY PARK ENLARGEMENTL-3TYPICAL FRONT YARD PRODUCTION LANDSCAPE PLANSL-4PRELIMINARY FRONTAGE & PARK PLANTING PLANSL-5TYPICAL FRONT YARD PRODUCTION PLANTING PLANSL-6PLANT IMAGES COMMON OPEN SPACEL-7PLANT IMAGES FRONT YARD LANDSCAPEL-8PRELIMINARY HYDROZONE PLANAS 20-20 / Z 20-06PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSW8.B.dPacket Pg. 104Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) N 89° 59' 50" W 368.72'N 01° 31' 00" W 434.15'N 89° 59' 50" W 381.16'S 00° 07' 30" W 434.00'LANDS OFST. FRANCIS INVESTMENTS III, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIPAPN: 790-17-003(DOC #24019154)LANDS OFCRC KERN INVESTORS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYAPN: 790-17-002(DOC #2413959)RIGHTS OF THE PUBLICEX OAK TO REMAINAS&PUD-02EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIS OF BEARINGS:THE BEARING OF S00°07'30"W BETWEEN FOUND STANDARD CITY MONUMENTS ALONG THECENTERLINE OF KERN AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 9112, LOSARROYOS", FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1998 IN BOOK 710 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 1 AND 2, RECORDS OFSANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS.BENCHMARK:SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BENCHMARK "BM259", A BRASS DISK SET IN THE TOPEASTERLY CURB FOR SANTA TERESA BOULEVARD AT THE CENTER OF THE SOUTH MOREYCHANNEL, 800 FEET NORTH FROM MANTELLI DRIVE, ELEVATION (NAVD88) = 219.75 FEET.SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-02 EXISTING CONDITIONS.DWG PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWGENERAL NOTES:ALL VEGETATION WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT TREES NOTED TOREMAIN8.B.dPacket Pg. 105Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) PARCEL ACOMMONOPENSPACE26'36'36'24.0'35.0'KERN AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)111066'46'46'46'61'80'45'84'44'44'44'44'44'86'73'63'44'44'45'88'88'88'88'65'44'44'58'98'95'41'26'16'68'82'93'92'91'77'50'44'46'44'50'37'53'50'88'44'46'44'50'44'81'81'81' 51'41'44'32'33'44'44'44'26'51'15' 26' 69'70' 81'57'26'16'32'45'27'7'36'23 '38'4'33'10'44'44'10'33' 4'44'30'23'20'38'35'83'83'83'85'38'55'60' 8 7 '46'44'2928272625242322212019186789123452113141516178'11'16'14'12'4'45'12'21' 4'81'12'121'121'37'98'18' 69'PARCEL BR=28R=28 R=28R=50R=36R=50R=50R=50 R=36R=500R=5016'PSE16'PSE7' PSE16'PSE16'PSE16'PSE10' PSE16'PSE16'PSE16'PSEWICKHAM COURT (PRIVATE STREET)BARTON WAY(PRIVATE STREET)WICKHAM COURT(PRIVATE)19'9'18'6'6'5.5'5.5'5.5'6'5.5'5.5'5.5'16.0'PSE36' PRIVATE STREETBARTON WAY & WICKHAM COURTNO SCALE8.0' PARKING36.0' ROWFC/ROW16.0' PSE5.5'SWK10.0' TRAVEL LANE℄8.0' PARKING10.0' TRAVEL LANE16.0' PSE5.5' SWKKERN AVENUE (PUBLIC STREET)NO SCALE24.0'TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF GILROY16.0' PSE6.0' SWK35.0'FCR/WEXIST.PL10.0' LANDSCAPEPROPOSED RESIDENTIALSUBDIVISIONFC/ROWFC/ROW13.0' TRAVEL LANE26.0' PSE13.0' TRAVEL LANEPLPL2%℄26' PRIVATE ALLEY (NO PARKING)WICKHAM COURT (PARCEL B)NO SCALE10.0' PSE7.0' PSEGRIND AND OVERLAY EXISTING STREETW:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-03 SITE PLAN.DWG SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 SITE PLANAS&PUD-03PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWEX. EP8.B.dPacket Pg. 106Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CWICKHAM COURTCCCCCCEEEBABABAD15141312PARCEL B7' PSE10' PSEA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CEABCCCCDEBACCEBAWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAY981011A/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CCCCCEKERN AVENUE ABDEABBARTON WAY4567UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CPARCEL ACOMMONOPENSPACE26'36'36'24.0'35.0'KERN AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)1452362992422161514132827262523212019181712781011PARCEL B16'PSE16'PSE7' PSE16'PSE16'PSE16'PSE10' PSE16'PSE16'PSE16'PSEWICKHAM COURT(PRIVATE STREET)BARTON WAY(PRIVATE STREET)11131312311WICKHAM COURT(PRIVATE)9'18'20'PLAN 220'PLAN 3PLAN 3PLAN 220'20'PLAN 320'PLAN 120'20'PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 120'20'6'6'5.5'PLAN 2PLAN 1PLAN 25.5'20'20'PLAN 2PLAN 1PLAN 220'20'20'PLAN 2PLAN 3PLAN 1PLAN 220'20'20'20'20'5.5'PLAN 2PLAN 220'20'PLAN 2PLAN 120'20'20'PLAN 3PLAN 220'PLAN 1PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 120'20'20'20'6'5.5'5.5'5.5'W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-04 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.DWG SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSAS&PUD-04FRONT BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE(E)(A)15' MIN.13' MIN.LIVING SPACE TO PRIVATE ALLEY FACE OF CURB/ROW*REAR(B)GARAGE TO PRIVATE ALLEY FACE OF CURB/ROWSIDE 20' MIN.(C)INTERNAL LOT*CORNER TO PRIVATE ALLEY FACE OF CURB/ROW*5' MIN.10' MIN.TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR HOUSES FRONTING/SIDING ON PRIVATE ALLEY1"=30'DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS (D)FRONT BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE(E)(A)15' MIN.29' MIN.LIVING SPACE TO KERN AVENUE FACE OF CURB/ROW*REAR(B)GARAGE TO KERN AVENUE FACE OF CURB/ROWSIDE 36' MIN.(C)INTERNAL LOT*CORNER TO KERN AVENUE FACE OF CURB/ROW*5' MIN.26' MIN.TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR HOUSES FRONTING/SIDING KERN AVENUE1"=30'* THE PORCH MAY ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT OR SIDE SETBACK ANADDITIONAL 1-FOOT.DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS(D)FRONT BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE(E)(A)15' MIN.18.5' MIN.LIVING SPACE TO PRIVATE STREET FACE OF CURB/ROW*REAR(B)GARAGE TO PRIVATE STREET FACE OF CURB/ROWSIDE 25.5' MIN.(C)INTERNAL LOT*CORNER TO PRIVATE STREET FACE OF CURB/ROW5' MIN.16' MIN.TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR HOUSES ON PRIVATE STREET1"=30'DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS(D)* THE PORCH MAY ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT OR SIDE SETBACK ANADDITIONAL 1-FOOT.* THE PORCH MAY ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT OR SIDE SETBACK ANADDITIONAL 1-FOOT.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSPARKING REQUIRED BY GILROY ZONING ORD. 30.31 OFF-STREET PARKING 58 GARAGE SPACES2 STALLS PER DWELLING UNIT (1 COVERED)3.6 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNITPARKING TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES58 PARKING PROVIDED AT THE COTTAGES AT KERN1 GARAGE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT (COVERED)29 GARAGE SPACES2 DRIVEWAY SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT58 ON-STREET PARKING SPACESTOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES18 105LOT NO.LOT SF +/-FLOOR PLANHEIGHT MAX.14,415PLAN 335'23,872PLAN 235'34,048PLAN 335'43,872PLAN 235'54,400PLAN 335'65,097PLAN 135'73,564PLAN 235'83,563PLAN 235'94,433PLAN 135'104,312PLAN 235'114,293PLAN 135'124,057PLAN 235'133,129PLAN 235'143,038PLAN 135'153,420PLAN 235'163,848PLAN 235'177,389PLAN 335'183,430PLAN 135'193,989PLAN 235'204,070PLAN 235'214,014PLAN 235'223,822PLAN 235'234,630PLAN 135'246,363PLAN 335'253,817PLAN 235'263,870PLAN 135'273,819PLAN 235'283,814PLAN 235'295,255PLAN 135'PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWPARKING SPACECOVERAGEPROPOSED18.B.dPacket Pg. 107Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C14PAD 216.013PAD 216.315PAD 215.916PAD 215.717PAD 215.718PAD 215.519PAD 215.320PAD 215.121PAD 214.922PAD 214.623PAD 214.424PAD 214.725PAD 214.926PAD 214.927PAD 214.729PAD 214.96PAD 215.010PAD 215.011PAD 215.212PAD 215.51PAD 216.22PAD 215.93PAD 215.64PAD 215.35PAD 215.37PAD 214.78PAD 214.79PAD 215.028PAD 214.7LPTC 213.3CL 214.3±GBCL 213.8CL 213.9CL 215.1CL 215.3CL 215.0LPCL 213.2LPTC 213.27HPTC 213.7TC 213.7LPTC 213.2HPTC 213.8 TC 213.7 TC 214.3 TC 214.3HPTC 214.9LPTC 213.8 TC 214.9TC 215.1TC 215.5TVC 215.9TVC 215.7TVC 215.6CL 214 .9TC 215 .0TVC 216.1TC 213.7TC 214.2 TC 214.0TC 213.7TC 214.1TC 215.2 CL/BOW 214 .8TVC 2 1 5 . 5 PAV 214 .3GBCL 214.4HPTC 213.8CL 213.8CL 213.4TC 213.5TC 2 1 3 . 5 TC 213.5TC 214.5TC 214.51.7' MAX RETAINING1.7' MAX RETAINING2.0' MAX RETAINING2.5' MAX RETAINING2.9' MAX RETAINING4.3' MAX RETAINING3.8' MAX RETAINING3.8' MAX RETAINING2.4' MAX RETAINING1.7' MAX RETAINING1.2' MAX RETAINING1.3' MAX RETAININGWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTCL 213.8PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANAS&PUD-05GRADING NOTES1. ALL PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN ON THIS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN.2. SEE THIS SHEET FOR GRADING SECTIONS.3. PROJECT SHALL PROVIDE 2" AC OVERLAY WITH PAVEMENT DIG-OUTSALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE.GRADING LEGENDAPPROXIMATE PAD ELEVATIONAPPROXIMATE SPOT ELEVATIONSLOPEPOSSIBLE RETAINING WALLANTICIPATED STREET SLOPEEMERGENCY OVERLAND DRAINAGE RELEASEEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURLINE OF VISIBILITY PER CITY OF GILROY STANDARD DETAIL STR-9P 214.0213.01.5%EARTHWORK SUMMARYITEM QUANTITYSITE CUT 7,100± CYSITE FILL 9,900± CYNETIMPORT2,800± CYSHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-05 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN.DWG 8.B.dPacket Pg. 108Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C8" PVC W PRIVATE18" PVC SDS=0.005±8" PVC W8" PVC W8" PVC W8" PVC W8" PVC SSS=0.012±8" PVC SSS=0.003±15" PVC SDS=0.02±8" PVC SS S=0.003±8" PVC SSS=0.003±18" PVC SD S=0.005±18" PVC SDS=0.005±8" PVC SSS=0.003± PRIVATE (PVC)18" PVC SDS=0.005± PRIVATESDMHRIM 213.7±INV 15" IN 208.7±INV 15" IN 206.9±INV 18" OUT 206.9±SDMHRIM 213.2±INV 18"IN 206.3±INV 18" OUT 205.0SDMHRIM 213.1±INV 18" THRU 208.7±SDMHRIM 214.1±CONNECT TO EX SDINV 18" 207.9±EX INV 207.9±SSMHRIM 214.2±CONNECT TO EX SSINV IN 204.7±EX INV 204.61±SSMHRIM 213.8±INV 8" THRU 205.5±SDCITC 214.9±INV 15" OUT 209.9±SSMHRIM 212.2±INV 8" THRU 206.1±SSMHRIM 215.0±INV 8" THRU 206.3±SSMHRIM 215.3±INV 8" 206.9±SDMHRIM 215.2±INV 18" THRU 204.7±SDMHRIM 214.9±INV 15" IN 209.3±INV 18" OUT 205.0±SDMHRIM 214.5±INV 18" OUT 209.2±SDCITC 213.3±INV 18" THRU 204.9±18" SD INV 204.418" SD INV 204.41413151617181920212223242526272961011121234578928EX 18" SDEX 18" SDEX 12" SSEX 12" W EX 12" WEX 12" SS 8" WMSDCITC 213.8INV 15" 208.5±CONNECT TO EXISTING WSTORMCHAMBER8" BFPSDCITC 214.0INV 15" 207.8±15" SDS=0.005±15" PVC SDS=0.005±EX SDMHRIM 213.8±CONNECT TO EX SDMHINV 15" 207.5±EX INV 18" 207.5±EX INV 12" 207.5±EX SDMHRIM 213.7±CONNECT TO EX SDMHINV 15" 208.3±EX INV 18" 208.2±EX INV 12" 208.3±EX INV 12" 208.9±EX SDCIRIM 213.2±EX INV 12" 208.2±EX SDCIRIM 213.1±EX ELECTEX ELECTEX ELECTEX FHEX SSMHEX SSMHEX FHWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTSDCITC 213.3±INV 15" OUT 206.7±SDCITC 213.2±INV 15" OUT 207.5±SDCITC 213.7±INV 15" OUT 209.2±15" PVC SDS=0.01±15" PVC SD S=0.01± 18" PVC SD S=0.005±18" PVC SD S=0.005± PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANAS&PUD-06UTILITY NOTES1. ALL PIPE SIZES, SLOPES AND ELEVATIONS ON THIS PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLAN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO REFINEMENTDURING FINAL DESIGN.2. ALL WATER MAINS SHOWN IN PUBLIC STREETS ARE PUBLIC AND SHALLBE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF GILROY.3. ALL WATER MAINS SHOWN IN PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BE PRIVATEAND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.4. ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS SHOWN IN PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BEPRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.5. ALL STORM DRAIN MAINS SHOWN IN PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BEPRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.6. ALL SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SHOWN IN PUBLIC STREETSSHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF GILROY.7. STORM DRAIN PIPE SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET CITY OF GILROYDESIGN STANDARDS TO CONVEY THE 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM PEAKFLOW RATE. THE 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR PEAK FLOW WILL BE CONVEYEDBY THE FULL STREET SECTION TO THE DOWNSTREAM STORM WATERBASIN.UTILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONSSTORM DRAINSANITARY SEWERWATERMANHOLEINLETFIRE HYDRANTWATER METERELECTROLIERSTORM DRAINSTORM DRAIN MANHOLESANITARY SEWERSANITARY SEWER MANHOLESLOPEINVERT ELEVATIONWATERPROPOSEDEXISTING/FUTURESDSDMHSSSSMHSINVWSHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-06 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN.DWG 8.B.dPacket Pg. 109Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CSCM AWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTPROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONSTORM DRAINSTORM DRAIN INLETDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYDRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA IDPRELIMINARY STORMWATER SIZING CALCULATIONSNOTE:1) REFER TO STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY AREACALCULATIONS.UNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYSTORM WATER MANAGEMENT NOTES:1. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (CCWQCB) JURISDICTION.STORM WATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT SHALL ADHERE TO THE CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN THE "STORMWATER MANAGEMENTGUIDANCE MANUAL FOR LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT & POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF GILROY,CITY OF MORGAN HILL, AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA", DATED JUNE 2015.2. THIS STORM WATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BASED ON FINAL DESIGN ANDSITE SPECIFIC INFILTRATION TESTING.3. THE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER RETENTION WAS SIZED USING THE "ROUTING METHOD" IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIXD OF THE CCRWQCB RESOLUTION NO. R3-2013-0032. A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HAS NOT BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT,CALCULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN BASED ON SOIL INFORMATION.4. ALL STORMWATER CALCULATIONS PROVIDED ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN. THE LIDMEASURES AND STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAY BE CHANGED OR MODIFIED DURING FINAL DESIGN AS LONG AS THEPROJECT CAN SHOW CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF GILROY AND CCRWQCB POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATERREGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL.5. PEAK FLOW AND FLOOD CONTROL MANAGEMENT IS PROVIDED IN EACH TREATMENT AREA WHERE APPLICABLE. PRELIMINARY SWC PLANAS&PUD-07SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OF SHEETSSHEETBY DATE SCALECK ARCHITECTURAL SITE REVIEW/ THE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALFORNIAFOR:D.R. HORTON2020163109/30/2020 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAS SHOWNUPDATED PER INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 12, 2020. 10/22/2020 W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\AS&PUD\AS&PUD-07 PRELIMINARY SWC PLAN.DWG 8.B.dPacket Pg. 110Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Civil Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.e Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Preliminary Park EnlargementOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436TURFPARKING STALLS PER CIVIL'SIMPROVEMENT PLANSTOT LOT PLAY EQUIPMENTPOUR-IN-PLAY PLAYSURFACINGUNDERGROUND C3 STORAGE PERCIVIL'S IMPROVEMENT PLANS4'-0" WIDE MEANDERINGCONCRETE PATH5'-0" TALL TUBULAR STEELSECURITY FENCE AT OPENSPACE/PRIVATE LOT INTERFACE5'-0" TUBULAR STEEL SECURITYFENCE AT FRONTAGEBGRADED5'-0" WIDE CONCRETE WALK6'-0" HIGH WOOD PRODUCTIONFENCE, TYPICALCLUSTER MAILBOXABENCH, SEE DETAIL DTHIS SHEETLOT 5PLAN 3LOT 7PLAN 2LOT 10PLAN 2LOT 11PLAN 1LOT 12PLAN 2LOT 8PLAN 2LOT 4PLAN 2LOT 3PLAN 3PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTBARTON WAYC STORM DRAIN CHAMBERLIMITSBUILDING ENVELOPE, TYPICALWICKHAMCOURT 8.B.ePacket Pg. 112Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Typical Front Yard Production Landscape PlansOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436PLAN 3PLAN 1PLAN 2CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PER CIVIL'SIMPROVEMENT PLANS4'-0' WIDE CONCRETEENTRY WALK, TYPICALLIMITS OF MULCHED PATH TO SIDEACCESS GATE, TYPICAL6'-0" WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK PERCIVIL'S IMPROVEMENT PLANSSHRUB & GROUNDCOVERPLANTING, TYPICALSTREET TREE, TYPICAL6'-0" HIGH WOOD PRODUCTIONFENCE, TYPICALSEE DETAIL A, THIS SHEETALOT LINE,TYPICAL8.B.ePacket Pg. 113Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Preliminary Frontage & Park Planting PlansOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436KERN AVENUEKERN AVENUETURFMATCHLINE SEE BELOW RIGHT MATCHLINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT LOT 3PLAN 3LOT 4PLAN 2LOT 5PLAN 3LOT 7PLAN 2LOT 8PLAN 2LOT 10PLAN 2LOT 11PLAN 1LOT 12PLAN 2LOT 29PLAN 1LOT 6PLAN 1LOT 5PLAN 3LOT 4PLAN 2LOT 3PLAN 3LOT 2PLAN 2LOT 1PLAN 3BARTON WAYBARTON WAYBARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTPLANTING TO BEADJUSTED PER FINALFOOTPRINT OFPUBLIC ART8.B.ePacket Pg. 114Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Typical Front Yard Production Planting PlansOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436PLAN 3PLAN 1PLAN 28.B.ePacket Pg. 115Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) BUDDLEJA DAVADIIBUTTERFLY BUSHPlanting ImagesCommon Open SpaceOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'DWARF MAT RUSHJUNCUS PATENSCALIFORNIA GRAY RUSHNEPETA FAASSENIICATMINTCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUMCAPE RUSHDIETES BICOLOR 'MORAEA'FORTNIGHT LILYACCA SELLOWIANAPINEAPPLE GUAVACOLEONEMA PULCHELLUM 'SUNSET GOLD'BREATH OF HEAVENMYRTUS COMMUNIS 'COMPACTA'DWARF MYRTLEHYPERICUM MOSERIANUMGOLD FLOWERLAVATERA MARITIMATREE MALLOWOLEA E. 'LITTLE OLLIE'DWARF OLIVEPHORMIUM T. 'TONY TIGER'GREEN-CREAM DWARF FLAXANIGOZANTHOS 'BUSH PEARL'KANGAROO PAWKNIPHOFIA 'NANCY'S RED'RED HOT POKERKNIPHOFIA 'DWARF YELLOW'RED HOT POKERLANTANA MONTEVIDENSISPURPLE TRAILING LANTANACERCIS OCCIDENTALISWESTERN REDBUDPISTACIA CHINENSISCHINESE PISTACHELAGERSTROEMIA 'ZUNI'CRAPE MYRTLEPRUNUS C. KRAUTER VESUVIUS'PURPLE-LEAF PLUMARBUTUS MARINAMARINA STRAWBERRY TREEQUERCUS LOBATAVALLEY OAKLAGERSTROEMIA I. 'TUSCARORA'CRAPE MYRTLE8.B.ePacket Pg. 116Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Planting ImagesFront Yard LandscapeOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436LANTANA CAMARA 'CONFETTI'SPREADING LANTANAARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'HOWARD McMINN'MANZANITALOROPETALUM CHINENSIS 'PURPLE PIXIE'CHINESE FRINGE FLOWERCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUMCAPE RUSHDIETES BICOLOR 'MORAEA'FORTNIGHT LILYEUONYMUS J. 'MICROPHYLLUS'BOXLEAF EUONYMUSWESTRINGIA 'WYNYABBIE HIGHLIGHT'AUSTRALIAN ROSEMARYPHORMIUM 'YELLOW WAVE'NEW ZEALAND FLAXGREVILLEA 'NOELLI'WOOLY GREVILLEAHYPERICUM MOSERIANUMGOLD FLOWERLAVATERA MARITIMATREE MALLOWLAVANDULA A. MUNSTEAD'DWARF ENGLISH LAVENDERMYRTUS C. 'COMPACTA'DWARF MYRTLENEPETA FAASSENNIICATMINTOLEA E. 'LITTLE OLLIE'DWARF OLIVEPHORMIUM T. 'TONY TIGER'GREEN-CREAM DWARF FLAXTEUCRIUM CHAMAE DRYSGERMANDERRHAPHIOLEPIS I. 'BALLERINA'BALLERINA INDIAN HAWTHORNLIMONIUM PEREZIISTATTICE8.B.ePacket Pg. 117Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Preliminary Hydrozone PlanOctober 22, 2020LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436KERN AVENUE LOT 1PLAN 3LOT 2PLAN 2LOT 3PLAN 3LOT 4PLAN 2LOT 5PLAN 3LOT 6PLAN 1LOT 7PLAN 2LOT 8PLAN 2LOT 9PLAN 1LOT 10PLAN 2LOT 11PLAN 1LOT 12PLAN 2LOT 13PLAN 2LOT 14PLAN 1LOT 15PLAN 2LOT 16PLAN 2LOT 17PLAN 3LOT 18PLAN 1LOT 19PLAN 2LOT 20PLAN 2LOT 21PLAN 2LOT 22PLAN 2LOT 23PLAN 1LOT 24PLAN 3LOT 25PLAN 2LOT 26PLAN 1LOT 27PLAN 2LOT 28PLAN 2LOT 29PLAN 1PROPOSED POINT-OF-CONNECTIONPER CIVIL'S IMPROVEMENT PLANSWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURT8.B.ePacket Pg. 118Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Landscape Plans (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CPARCEL ACOMMONOPENSPACEKERN AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)ST. CLAR AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)1452362992422161514132827262523212019181712781011PARCEL BWICKHAM COURT (PRIVATE STREET)BARTON WAY(PRIVATE STREET)WICKHAM COURT(PRIVATE)KERN AVENUE WREN AVENUETATUM AVENUEMANTELLI DR IVE CITY OF GILROY LIMITSPROJECTSITEVESTING TENTATIVE MAPTHE COTTAGES AT KERNGILROY, CALIFORNIAPROJECT TEAMOWNERS:CRC KERN INVESTORS, LLC.ST FRANCIS INVESTMENT IIIAPPLICANT:D.R. HORTON6683 OWENS DRIVE PLEASANTON, CA 94588CONTACT: CHRIS ZABALLOS(510) 506-3750, CPZABALLOS@DRHORTON.COMCIVIL ENGINEER & PLANNER:RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR8055 CAMINO ARROYO, GILROY CA 95020CONTACT ENGINEER: JIM SCHUL, P.E. RCE#CONTACT PLANNER: ROSS DOYLE(408) 848-0300, JSCHUL@RJA-GPS.COM & RDOYLE@RJA-GPS.COMVICINITY MAPPROJECT INFORMATION 1.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 790-17-002 & 790-17-0032.ADDRESS: 9130 & 9160 KERN AVENUE, GILROY3.PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 29 SINGLE-FAMILYHOMES WITH ASSOCIATED ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS.4.PRESENT LAND USE: VACANT5.EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL6.EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT: R3-PUD7.PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: R3-PUD8.GROSS SITE AREA: ±3.73 AC9.NET SITE AREA: ±2.91 AC10.BUILDING AREA: 29 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ±2.79 ACPRIVATE STREETS (BARTON WAY & WICKHAM COURT) ±0.49 ACWICKHAM COURT (PARCEL B) ±0.09 ACPUBLIC STREET (KERN AVENUE) ±0.24 ACPARCEL A - COMMON OPEN SPACE ±0.12 ACTOTAL ±3.73 AC11.NET DENSITY: 9.97 DU/AC12.BUILDING COVERAGE: ±34,679 SF (±21.3%)13.LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: ±71,722 SF (±44.0%)14.PARKING & DRIVE AISLES COVERAGE: ±21,121 SF (±12.9%)15.HARDSCAPE COVERAGE: ±35,656 SF (±21.9%)16.UTILITIES:WATER CITY OF GILROYGAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRICSANITARY SEWER H.O.A.STORM DRAIN H.O.A.TELEPHONE VERIZONCABLE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS17.THE PROJECT LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X - OTHER FLOOD AREA DEFINED AS AREASOF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREA OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITHAVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD(FIRM MAP 06085C0639H, EFFECTIVE DATE MAY 18, 2009).18.THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN IS BASED ON AN AERIAL SURVEY DATEDMARCH 16, 2020 PREPARED BY RADMAN. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ON THIS PLANREPRESENT GROUND ELEVATIONS AS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF SAID SURVEY.19.PARCEL A, STREET LANDSCAPING, AND PARCEL B (WICKHAM COURT) WITHIN THEPROJECT DEVELOPMENT AREA WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A HOMEOWNERASSOCIATION OR A SIMILAR ENTITY.GENERAL NOTES1.THE PROPOSED STREET NAMES DEPICTED HEREIN ARE PRELIMINARY ANDSUBJECT TO CHANGE.2.FLOOR PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.3.LOT NUMBERS ARE FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED ASFINAL.4.CERTIFICATION OF GRADES AND SOIL COMPACTION REQUIRED PRIOR TOBUILDING PERMIT FINAL.5.ALL FUTURE BUILDINGS SHALL BE SPRINKLERED FOR FIRE SAFETY PER THECITY OF GILROY FIRE AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.6.ALL RETAINING WALLS (IF REQUIRED) SHALL BE MASONRY AND SHALL BE AMODULAR SYSTEM AND/OR CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE WITH A DECORATIVESURFACING. ALL SITE RETAINING WALLS ARE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING DIVISIONS. WOODWALLS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.7.PROPOSED PIPE SIZES, SLOPES, AND ELEVATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY ANDSUBJECT TO REFINEMENT DURING FINAL DESIGN.8.ALL WORK IS TO BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF GILROYSPECIFICATION STANDARDS AND DESIGN CRITERIA AND IS SUBJECT TO ALLLAWS OF THIS COMMUNITY BY REFERENCE.9.TRANSFORMERS AND SPLICE BOXES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.10.CERTIFICATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE PLANS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TOBUILDING FINAL.11.ALL GRADING WILL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONSAND CONDITIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S REPORTS REGARDINGTHIS PROJECT.12.PROPOSED GRADES AS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. FINAL GRADES ARE SUBJECTTO FINAL DESIGN.13.ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THECRITERIA AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF GILROY.14.GRADING, SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS, AND UTILITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL ANDARE SUBJECT TO REVISION AND CITY APPROVAL DURING FINAL DESIGN.15.IF THE PROJECT HAS EXCESS FILL OR CUT THAT WILL BE ON OR OFF-HAULED TOA SITE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF GILROY, AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT ISREQUIRED.16.ALL UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN BARTON WAY, WICKHAM COURT, AND PARCELB (WICKHAM COURT) ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED.17.ALL VEGETATION WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT TREESNOTED TO REMAIN ON AS&PUD-02.TITLE SHEETVTM-01W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\VTM\VTM-01 TITLE SHEET.DWG PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWVESTING TENTATIVE MAP THE COTTATGES AT KERN GILROY, CALIFORNIA FOR: D. R. HORTONSHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEVTM-01TITLE SHEETVTM-02EXISTING CONDITIONSVTM-03SITE PLANVTM-04PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANVTM-05PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANVTM-06PRELIMINARY SWC PLANI, JIM SCHUL, CERTIFY THAT THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY OF GILROY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE STATE MAP ACT.A SOILS REPORT ON THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PREPARED BY QUANTUM GEOTECHNICAL, INC., ENTITLED "GEOTECHNICALINVESTIGATION ON PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT KERN AVENUE", DATED MARCH 25, 2020, WHICH HAS BEENFILED WITH THE CITY OF GILROY.I, BRYAN PIERCE, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY STATE THAT THIS VESTINGTENTATIVE MAP IS BASED UPON SURVEY UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IT COMPLIES WITH CITY OF GILROYSUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND STATE MAP ACT.TM 20-068.B.fPacket Pg. 119Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) N 89° 59' 50" W 368.72'N 01° 31' 00" W 434.15'N 89° 59' 50" W 381.16'S 00° 07' 30" W 434.00'LANDS OFST. FRANCIS INVESTMENTS III, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIPAPN: 790-17-003(DOC #24019154)LANDS OFCRC KERN INVESTORS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYAPN: 790-17-002(DOC #2413959)RIGHTS OF THE PUBLICEX OAK TO REMAINVTM-02EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIS OF BEARINGS:THE BEARING OF S00°07'30"W BETWEEN FOUND STANDARD CITY MONUMENTS ALONG THECENTERLINE OF KERN AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 9112, LOSARROYOS", FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1998 IN BOOK 710 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 1 AND 2, RECORDS OFSANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS.BENCHMARK:SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BENCHMARK "BM259", A BRASS DISK SET IN THE TOPEASTERLY CURB FOR SANTA TERESA BOULEVARD AT THE CENTER OF THE SOUTH MOREYCHANNEL, 800 FEET NORTH FROM MANTELLI DRIVE, ELEVATION (NAVD88) = 219.75 FEET.W:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\VTM\VTM-02 EXISTING CONDITIONS.DWG PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWVESTING TENTATIVE MAP THE COTTATGES AT KERN GILROY, CALIFORNIA FOR: D. R. HORTON GENERAL NOTES:ALL VEGETATION WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT TREES NOTED TOREMAIN.8.B.fPacket Pg. 120Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 16.0'PSEPARCEL ACOMMONOPENSPACE26'36'36'24.0'35.0'KERN AVENUE(PUBLIC STREET)66'46'46'46'61'80'45'84'44'44'44'44'44'86'73'63'44'44'45'88'88'88'88'65'44'44'58'98'95'41'26'16'68'82'93'92'91'77'50'44'46'44'50'37'53'50'88'44'46'44'50'44'81'81'81' 51'41'44'32'33'44'44'44'26'51'15 ' 26' 69'70' 81'57'26'16'32'45'27'7'36'2 3 '38'4'33'10'44'44'10'33' 4'44'30'23'20'38'35'83'83'83'85'38'55'60'87'46'44'14523629924221615141328272625232120191817127810113,814 ± SF3,819 ± SF3,870 ± SF3,817 ± SF6,363 ± SF4,630 ± SF3,822 ± SF4,014 ± SF4,070 ± SF3,989 ± SF3,430 ± SF7,389 ± SF3,848 ± SF3,420 ± SF3,038 ± SF3,129 ± SF4,057 ± SF4,293 ± SF4,312 ± SF4,433 ± SF3,563 ± SF3,564 ± SF5,097 ± SF4,400 ± SF3,872 ± SF4,048 ± SF3,872 ± SF4,415 ± SF8'11'16'14'12'4'45'12'21'4'81'12'121'121'37'98'18' 69'PARCEL BR=28R=28 R=28R=50R=36R= 5 0R=50R= 5 0 R=36R=500R=5016'PSE16'PSE7' PSE16'PSE16'PSE16'PSE10' PSE16'PSE16'PSE16'PSEWICKHAM COURT (PRIVATE STREET)BARTON WAY(PRIVATE STREET)0.12 ± AC0.09 ± ACWICKHAM COURT(PRIVATE)19'9'18'6'6'5.5'5.5'5.5'6'5,255 ± SF5.5'5.5'5.5'36' PRIVATE STREETBARTON WAY & WICKHAM COURTNO SCALE8.0' PARKING36.0' ROWFC/ROW16.0' PSE5.5'SWK10.0' TRAVEL LANE℄8.0' PARKING10.0' TRAVEL LANE16.0' PSE5.5' SWKKERN AVENUE (PUBLIC STREET)NO SCALE24.0'TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF GILROY16.0' PSE6.0' SWK35.0'FCR/WEXIST.PL10.0' LANDSCAPEPROPOSED RESIDENTIALSUBDIVISIONFC/ROWFC/ROW13.0' TRAVEL LANE26.0' PSE13.0' TRAVEL LANEPLPL2%℄26' PRIVATE ALLEY (NO PARKING)WICKHAM COURT (PARCEL B)NO SCALE10.0' PSE7.0' PSEGRIND AND OVERLAY EXISTING STREETW:\JOBS 20\202016 - KERN AND ST CLAR\DRAWINGS\PRELIM\APPLICATIONS\VTM\VTM-03 SITE PLAN.DWG SITE PLANVTM-03PROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTFACE OF CURBSTORM DRAINWATERMANHOLESIDEWALKSANITARY SEWERFIRE HYDRANTSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETUNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYBOUNDARYELECTROLIERSDSSWVESTING TENTATIVE MAP THE COTTATGES AT KERN GILROY, CALIFORNIA FOR: D. R. HORTON 8.B.fPacket Pg. 121Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C14PAD 216.013PAD 216.315PAD 215.916PAD 215.717PAD 215.718PAD 215.519PAD 215.320PAD 215.121PAD 214.922PAD 214.623PAD 214.424PAD 214.725PAD 214.926PAD 214.927PAD 214.729PAD 214.96PAD 215.010PAD 215.011PAD 215.212PAD 215.51PAD 216.22PAD 215.93PAD 215.64PAD 215.35PAD 215.37PAD 214.78PAD 214.79PAD 215.028PAD 214.7LPTC 213.3CL 214.3±GBCL 213.8CL 213.9CL 215.1CL 215.3CL 215.0LPCL 213.2LPTC 213.27HPTC 213.7TC 213.7LPTC 213.2HP TC 213.8 TC 213.7 TC 214.3 TC 214.3HPTC 214.9LPTC 213.8 TC 214.9TC 215.1TC 215.5TVC 215.9TVC 215.7TVC 215.6CL 214.9TC 215 .0TVC 216.1TC 213.7TC 214.2 TC 214.0TC 213.7TC 214.1TC 215.2 CL/BOW 214 .8TVC 215 .5PAV 214 .3GBCL 214.4HPTC 213.8CL 213.8CL 213.4TC 213.5TC 213 .5TC 213.5TC 214.5TC 214.51.7' MAX RETAINING1.7' MAX RETAINING2.0' MAX RETAINING2.5' MAX RETAINING2.9' MAX RETAINING4.3' MAX RETAINING3.8' MAX RETAINING3.8' MAX RETAINING2.4' MAX RETAINING1.7' MAX RETAINING1.2' MAX RETAINING1.3' MAX RETAININGWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTCL 213.8PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANVTM-04SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OFSHEETSSHEETMK BY DATE SCALECK THE COTTATGES AT KERN GILROY, CALFORNIAFOR: D. R. HORTON2020166OCT 2020 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP GRADING NOTES1.ALL PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN ON THIS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN.2.SEE THIS SHEET FOR GRADING SECTIONS.3.PROJECT SHALL PROVIDE 2" AC OVERLAY WITH PAVEMENT DIG-OUTSALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE.GRADING LEGENDAPPROXIMATE PAD ELEVATIONAPPROXIMATE SPOT ELEVATIONSLOPEPOSSIBLE RETAINING WALLANTICIPATED STREET SLOPEEMERGENCY OVERLAND DRAINAGE RELEASEEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURLINE OF VISIBILITY PER CITY OF GILROY STANDARD DETAIL STR-9P 214.0213.01.5%EARTHWORK SUMMARYITEM QUANTITYSITE CUT7,100± CYSITE FILL9,900± CYNETIMPORT2,800± CY8.B.fPacket Pg. 122Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C UPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C8" PVC W PRIVATE18" PVC SDS=0.005±8" PVC W8" PVC W8" PVC W8" PVC W8" PVC SSS=0.012±8" PVC SSS=0.003±15" PVC SDS=0.02±8" PVC SS S=0.003±8" PVC SSS=0.003±18" PVC SD S=0.005±18" PVC SDS=0.005±8" PVC SSS=0.003± PRIVATE (PVC)18" PVC SDS=0.005± PRIVATESDMHRIM 213.7±INV 15" IN 208.7±INV 15" IN 206.9±INV 18" OUT 206.9±SDMHRIM 213.2±INV 18"IN 206.3±INV 18" OUT 205.0SDMHRIM 213.1±INV 18" THRU 208.7±SDMHRIM 214.1±CONNECT TO EX SDINV 18" 207.9±EX INV 207.9±SSMHRIM 214.2±CONNECT TO EX SSINV IN 204.7±EX INV 204.61±SSMHRIM 213.8±INV 8" THRU 205.5±SDCITC 214.9±INV 15" OUT 209.9±SSMHRIM 212.2±INV 8" THRU 206.1±SSMHRIM 215.0±INV 8" THRU 206.3±SSMHRIM 215.3±INV 8" 206.9±SDMHRIM 215.2±INV 18" THRU 204.7±SDMHRIM 214.9±INV 15" IN 209.3±INV 18" OUT 205.0±SDMHRIM 214.5±INV 18" OUT 209.2±SDCITC 213.3±INV 18" THRU 204.9±18" SD INV 204.418" SD INV 204.41413151617181920212223242526272961011121234578928EX 18" SDEX 18" SDEX 12" SSEX 12" W EX 12" WEX 12" SS 8" WMSDCITC 213.8INV 15" 208.5±CONNECT TO EXISTING WSTORMCHAMBER8" BFPSDCITC 214.0INV 15" 207.8±15" SDS=0.005±15" PVC SDS=0.005±EX SDMHRIM 213.8±CONNECT TO EX SDMHINV 15" 207.5±EX INV 18" 207.5±EX INV 12" 207.5±EX SDMHRIM 213.7±CONNECT TO EX SDMHINV 15" 208.3±EX INV 18" 208.2±EX INV 12" 208.3±EX INV 12" 208.9±EX SDCIRIM 213.2±EX INV 12" 208.2±EX SDCIRIM 213.1±EX ELECTEX ELECTEX ELECTEX FHEX SSMHEX SSMHEX FHWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTSDCITC 213.3±INV 15" OUT 206.7±SDCITC 213.2±INV 15" OUT 207.5±SDCITC 213.7±INV 15" OUT 209.2±15" PVC SDS=0.01±15" PVC SD S=0.01± 18" PVC SD S=0.005±18" PVC SD S=0.005± PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANVTM-05UTILITY NOTES1.ALL PIPE SIZES, SLOPES AND ELEVATIONS ON THIS PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLAN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO REFINEMENTDURING FINAL DESIGN.2.ALL WATER MAINS SHOWN IN PUBLIC STREETS ARE PUBLIC AND SHALLBE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF GILROY.3.ALL WATER MAINS SHOWN IN PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BE PRIVATEAND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.4.ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS SHOWN IN PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BEPRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.5.ALL STORM DRAIN MAINS SHOWN IN PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BEPRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.6.ALL SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SHOWN IN PUBLIC STREETSSHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF GILROY.7.STORM DRAIN PIPE SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET CITY OF GILROYDESIGN STANDARDS TO CONVEY THE 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM PEAKFLOW RATE. THE 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR PEAK FLOW WILL BE CONVEYEDBY THE FULL STREET SECTION TO THE DOWNSTREAM STORM WATERBASIN.UTILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONSSTORM DRAINSANITARY SEWERWATERMANHOLEINLETFIRE HYDRANTWATER METERELECTROLIERSTORM DRAINSTORM DRAIN MANHOLESANITARY SEWERSANITARY SEWER MANHOLESLOPEINVERT ELEVATIONWATERPROPOSEDEXISTING/FUTURESDSDMHSSSSMHSINVWSHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OFSHEETSSHEETMK BY DATE SCALECK THE COTTATGES AT KERN GILROY, CALFORNIAFOR: D. R. HORTON2020166OCT 2020 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8.B.fPacket Pg. 123Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UP A/CA/CUP A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/C A/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUP A/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/C UPA/CA/C UPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CUPA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CA/CSCM AWICKHAM COURT BARTON WAYWICKHAM COURTPROPOSEDLEGENDDESCRIPTIONSTORM DRAINSTORM DRAIN INLETDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYDRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA IDPRELIMINARY STORMWATER SIZING CALCULATIONSNOTE:1)REFER TO STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY AREACALCULATIONS.UNDERGROUND RETENTION FACILITYSTORM WATER MANAGEMENT NOTES:1.THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (CCWQCB) JURISDICTION.STORM WATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT SHALL ADHERE TO THE CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN THE "STORMWATER MANAGEMENTGUIDANCE MANUAL FOR LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT & POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF GILROY,CITY OF MORGAN HILL, AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA", DATED JUNE 2015.2.THIS STORM WATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BASED ON FINAL DESIGN ANDSITE SPECIFIC INFILTRATION TESTING.3.THE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER RETENTION WAS SIZED USING THE "ROUTING METHOD" IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIXD OF THE CCRWQCB RESOLUTION NO. R3-2013-0032. A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HAS NOT BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT,CALCULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN BASED ON SOIL INFORMATION.4.ALL STORMWATER CALCULATIONS PROVIDED ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN. THE LIDMEASURES AND STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAY BE CHANGED OR MODIFIED DURING FINAL DESIGN AS LONG AS THEPROJECT CAN SHOW CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF GILROY AND CCRWQCB POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATERREGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL.5.PEAK FLOW AND FLOOD CONTROL MANAGEMENT IS PROVIDED IN EACH TREATMENT AREA WHERE APPLICABLE.PRELIMINARY SWC PLANVTM-06SHEET REVISIONS DATE JOB NO.OFSHEETSSHEETMK BY DATE SCALECK THE COTTATGES AT KERN GILROY, CALFORNIAFOR: D. R. HORTON2020166OCT 2020 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8.B.fPacket Pg. 124Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Tentative Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) LOT # PLAN GARAGE 18' from back of sidewalk FRONT 26' to Face of Curb REAR 15' - and - 10' to patio cover SIDE 12' STREET SIDE 21' 1 3 20’ 29’ 18’ 5’ and 10' n/a 2 2 20' 32’-6” 18’ 5’ n/a 3 3 20' 29' 18’ 5’ n/a 4 2 20’ 32’-6” 18’ 5' n/a 5 3 20' 29’ 18’ 9’ and 5’ n/a 6 1 29’ 26’ 18’ 5’ 26’ 7 2 20’ 22’-to porch* 25’-6” 21’-6” 5’ n/a 8 2 20’ 22’-to porch* 25’-6” 21’-6” 5’ n/a 9 1 20’ 18’-6” 21’-6” 5’ 19’ 10 2 20’ 22’-to porch* 25’-6” 38’-6” 5’ n/a 11 1 31’ 26’-6” 32’ 5’ n/a 12 2 27’-6” 28’** 15’ 5’ 12’ 13 2 20’ 16’-6”-to porch* 20’ 15’ 6’-5” and 5’ n/a 14 1 20’ 13’ 19’ 5’ n/a 15 2 20’ 24’-10” 16’-6” 5’ n/a 16 2 20’ 22’-to porch* 25’-6” ** 15’ 5’ and 9’ n/a 17 3 20’ 29’** 15’-minimum 5’ and 11’-2” n/a 18 1 20’ 18’** 22’ 5’and 5’-5” n/a 19 2 29’ 22’-6”- to porch* 25’-6” 25’-6” 5’ n/a 20 2 20’ 22’-to porch* 25’-6” 32’ 5’ n/a 21 2 20’ 22’-to porch* 25’-6” 32’ 5’ n/a 22 2 20’ 25’-6” 15’ 5’ n/a 23 1 20’ 18’-10”** 15’ 5’ and 12’ n/a 24 3 20’ 21’** 16’ 5’ and 10’-4” n/a 25 2 20’ 20’- to porch* 25’-6”** 15’ 5’ and 6’-10” n/a 26 1 20’ 25’-6” 28’-6” 7’ and 5’ n/a 27 2 20’ 22’- to porch* 25’-6” 23’-6” 7’ and 5’ n/a 28 2 20’ 22’- to porch* 25’-6” 23’-6” 7’ and 5’ n/a 29 1 25’-9” 23’ 23’-6” 5’ 26’ 8.B.g Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: The Cottages at Kern Individual Lot Data (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.h Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: The Cottages at Kern - Phasing Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) The Cottages at Kern Phasing Plan Timeline Based upon a mid-year TM approval in 2021, we anticipate CD approvals in Q4 2021/Q1 2022. Once CD’s are approved, horizontal site development will take approximately 3-5 months. Projected home construction timeline as follows: Phase 000 Construction of two (2) model homes and parking area directly adjacent to the homes. Timing: 4-5 months Phase I Construction of 12 homes (6-9 and 22-29) Timing: 4-5 months Phase II Construction of 12 homes (10-21) Timing: 4-5 months Phase III Construction of 3 homes (1-3) on site of model home parking lot Timing: 4-5 months 8.B.h Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: The Cottages at Kern - Phasing Map (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) FINAL INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE COTTAGES AT KERN FILE NOS. AS 20-20, Z 20-06, TM 20-06 JULY 12, 2021 APRIL 19, 2021 PREPARED FOR: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF GILROY PREPARED BY: METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 307 ORCHARD CITY DRIVE, SUITE 100 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 8.B.i Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. B ACKGROUND ................................................................ 1 B. E NVIRONMENTAL F ACTORS P OTENTIALLY A FFECTED ......... 14 C. D ETERMINATION ........................................................... 15 D. E VALUATION OF E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACTS ...................... 16 1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... 18 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................... 21 3. Air Quality .......................................................................... 23 4. Biological Resources .......................................................... 28 5. Cultural and Tribal Resources ............................................ 33 6. Energy Conservation .......................................................... 37 7. Geology and Soils .............................................................. 39 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................ 43 9. Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfires ...................... 45 10. Stormwater, Flooding, and Groundwater ............................. 48 11. Land Use and Planning ....................................................... 52 12. Mineral Resources .............................................................. 54 13. Noise and Vibration ............................................................ 56 14. Population and Housing ...................................................... 59 15. Public Services ................................................................... 61 16. Recreation: ......................................................................... 63 17. Transportation and Mobility ................................................ 65 18. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................. 69 19. Additional CEQA Considerations/Discussion ....................... 72 E. S OURCES .................................................................... 73 8.B.i Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) ii Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ....................................................................... 7 Figure 2 Project Vicinity ............................................................................ 8 Figure 3 Site Images ................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Illustrated Site & Landscape Plan ............................................. 11 Figure 5 Conceptual Phasing Plan ......................................................... 12 Figure 6 Typical Building Front Elevations ............................................. 13 Tables Table 1 - Combined Community TAC Sources,Most Effected Individual 25 Appendices Appendix A Memorandum on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Results Appendix B Community Health Impact Assessment Appendix C Biological Resources Assessments Appendix D Noise and Vibration Assessment Appendix E Memorandum on Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis 8.B.i Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 1 A. BACKGROUND Project Title The Cottages at Kern (Architectural and Site Review AS 20-20, Zone Change Z 20-06, and Vesting Tract Map TM 20-06) Project Description The subdivision of the two existing lots into 32 lots, and the construction and occupation of 29 single family residences. The remaining three lots are for shared project access and amenity components. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number Miguel Contreras, Planner Planning Division, Community Development Department City of Gilroy (408) 846-0440 Date Prepared March 2021 Study Prepared by M-Group 307 Orchard City Drive, Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 Project Location Eastside of Kern Avenue between Tatum Avenue and St Clar Avenue, Gilroy, CA 95020 9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue APNs 790-17-002, 790-17-003 Project Sponsor Name and Address Chris Zaballos, Director of Entitlements DR Horton 6883 Owens Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 2020 General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential 2040 General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Low Density Residential Existing Zoning R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Proposed Zoning R-3 PUD (Medium Density Residential with the Planned Unit Development Combining District) Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Kern Avenue Cottages Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). This IS/ND is intended to inform City decision-makers, responsible agencies, interested parties, and the general public about the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Lead Agency (City of Gilroy) intends to tier this document off of the 8.B.i Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 2 environmental impact report (SCH # 2015082014) prepared for the recently adopted 2040 General Plan to provide a comprehensive analysis of the project impacts and effects. Legal Authority This IS/ND for the Project has been prepared in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. M-Group, at the request of the City of Gilroy, has prepared an Initial Study to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed project. This IS/ND is being "tiered" from the analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report for the 2020 General Plan that’s was certified on April 9, 2001 and in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2040 General Plan as certified by the City Council on November 2, 2020. CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 describes “tiering“ as a mechanism to base a project specific analysis on a previously prepared environmental review document. Tiering refers to using the analysis of potential impacts contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for the general plan) with later environmental documents prepared for smaller projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the EIR; and concentrating on project impacts specific to the later project. The 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report referenced in this Initial Study are available for public review in the Community Development Department, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 during normal business hours and at the following internet location: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan. Relationship to the 2020 and 2040 General Plans and EIRs The Project was determined to be complete a few days prior to the City Council’s approval of the 2040 General Plan. For that reason, the Project’s General Plan conformity will be evaluated against the 2020 General Plan. The Land Use Designation for the site under the 2020 General Plan was Medium Density Residential with a density range of between 8 and 16 dwelling units per acre. The target density is 12 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes a density of 8.3 and is consistent with the characteristics and allowable density for that land use designation. At a density of 8.3 dwelling units per acre, the Project is also consistent with the Land Use Designation set forth in the Gilroy 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram identifies the site as Neighborhood District Low Density Residential. The maximum average density is 17.3 dwelling units per acre with a target density of 12.8 dwelling units per acre. The purpose of the land use designation is to support a range of attached and detached residential uses at densities up to 30 units per acre; though most future development is expected to occur at densities of between 7 and 9 units per acre. Tiering this analysis off the certified Final Environmental Impact Reports for the 2020 General Plan and 2040 General Plan means that whenever a General Plan policy or program, or mitigation measure may mitigate or reduce an environmental impact, it is incorporated by this reference into the IS/ND. This incorporation by reference includes any Statements of 8.B.i Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 3 Overriding Considerations that may have been adopted during the certification process. Overriding consideration were adopted for the following impacts: Agricultural Resources Loss of Important Farmland Air Quality Inconsistent with Clean Air Plan Degrade Air Quality Greenhouse Gases Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Mobility Excess Vehicle Miles Traveled Setting The City of Gilroy encompasses approximately sixteen square miles in the central part of the Santa Clara Valley. The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the north, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Diablo Range to the east, and includes the agricultural lands around Hollister in the south. The Calaveras/Hayward fault zone parallels the Diablo Range along the east side of the valley. The project site is located in a residential area in northern Gilroy. The project is surrounded by unincorporated properties within the Sphere of Influence on three sides of the site. Figure 1 shows the location of the Project. The Project site consists of a vacant rectangular parcel located on the east side of Kern Avenue south of Tatum Avenue. Access to the site will be from Kern Avenue. This vacant site contains minimal topography but has been used in the past as a place to deposit excess dirt from other grading projects. The site elevations range from 210 feet to 224 feet above mean sea level. Most of the site is between 212 and 215 feet above mean sea level. The highest elevation is atop a large dirt pile in the northern portion of the site. The site is crossed by a jurisdictional water primarily created by urban runoff from Kern Avenue. The surrounding land uses are a combination of residential, agricultural, and rural business residential uses. Figure 2 shows the location of the site and the surrounding area. Images of the site are provided in Figure 3. Description of Project The Project proposes to subdivide the 3.74-acre site into a total of 32 parcels, including a dedication for the right-of-way for Kern Avenue. Twenty-nine of the parcels would be residential and would each contain a single detached residential dwelling unit. The net project site, excluding those portions of the site being dedicated to Kern Avenue, is approximately 3.5 acres. This results in a project density of approximately 8.3 dwelling units per acre. Two of the parcels would be for shared site access and onsite parking, and one parcel would be an open space/play area. The proposed residential parcels would range in size from 3,082 square 8.B.i Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 4 feet to 7,389 square feet; though most residential lots are between 3,500 and 4,500 square feet in area. The layout of site plan is shown on Figure 4. The project consists of three different floor plans. The smallest of the floor plan is a 1,544 square foot, 3-bedroom/2½-bath unit. The mid-sized floor plan is a 1,769 square foot, 4-bedroom/2½-bath unit. The largest of the three floor plans is for a 1,917 square foot 4-bedroom/3-bath unit. Each unit includes a two-car garage and fenced rear yard. The project will install street frontage improvements (i.e. additional paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along Kern Avenue. The proposed land use of the project, single family residential, is a permitted use in the R-3 Zoning district. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposes to modify some of the R-3 development standards for the project site. Proposed modifications to the development standards would facilitate the detached single family dwelling, as opposed to a medium density, attached residential produce. The modified development standards are depicted in the following table. The Project would comply with the other requirements of the Zoning Code including maximum building height, minimum rear yard setback, minimum private open space, the minimum distance between the back of sidewalk and the face of the garage, and minimum required parking. Current R-3 Requirements Proposed with PUD Minimum Lot Size 8,880 square feet 3,000 square feet Minimum Front Yard Setback (from the face of the curb) 26 feet 13 feet Minimum Street Side Yard Setback (from the face of the curb) 21 feet 10 feet Minimum Non-street Side Yard Setback 12 feet 5 feet The project is proposed to be construction in four phases. Phase One would involve the construction of two model homes and a temporary parking lot (on a final phase residential lot). Phases Two and Three each involve 12 units located along the private street and alley. The final phase would involve construction of the three final units fronting on Kern Avenue. The proposed phasing plan for the Project is contained in Figure 5. The analysis assumes that all site development would occur with the first phase and that all construction will occur at the same time. This assumption provides the maximum potential impacts from project construction. Site Layout and Access The project site would be accessed through the City road network via Kern Avenue. Five of the twenty-nine residences face (front upon) and have direct access to Kern Avenue. The other twenty-four residences would front on and take access from the private street and alley internal to the project. The layout of site plan is shown on Figure 4. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 5 The proposed sidewalk along the Project's Kern Avenue frontage would not immediately connect to sidewalks north or south of the site since there are no sidewalks in those areas. In the future when new development or public street improvements occur, these sidewalks would become connected. Architecture The Project is proposing three different architectural styles, with details typical of two-story suburban tract homes. All the units will have stucco exteriors with decorative shutters on the front elevations. The front elevations will have additional architectural details consistent with the underlying style. A "Traditional" style includes horizontal lap wood accent siding and flat slate-style roof tile. The "Spanish" style includes curved arches around the front door and porch along with decorative shutters, decorative tile vents, and a low profile "S" tile roofing. The "Farmhouse" style includes a board & batten accent siding and flat slate- style roof tile. Primary exterior colors include a variety of earth tones. Trim colors will complement the primary exterior colors consistent with the underlying architectural style. Typical building elevations are provided in Figure 6. Landscaping The project includes street trees, front yard landscaping for all of the proposed residences, and in the play area. The proposed street tree along Kern Avenue is the Red Maple (Acer Rubrum). These trees are depicted with this symbol, on Figure 4. The street tree along the private street is the Valley Oak (Quercus Lobata). These trees are depicted with this symbol, on Figure 4. The front yard landscaping include a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover of primarily low water use species. The rear yards of the units would be landscaped by the future owners. Future rear yard landscaping is expected to include combinations of trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf, and non-landscape materials. All developer installed landscaping will be required to comply with the City’s water efficient irrigation standards and requirements. Utilities The site is currently served by all utilities from the adjacent streets. The City of Gilroy provides water, sewer and storm drain. Pacific Gas & Electric provides natural gas and electrical service. Communication utilities are provided by Verizon and Charter Communications. No new public streets or street extensions would result from the Project. Entitlements The Project requires the following City (Lead Agency) entitlement (application) approvals: • Architectural and Site Review pursuant to Article L of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code to approve the site layout, building architecture and materials. • Zone Change to add a Planned Unit Development (PUD) combining district designation to the R-3 (High Density Residential) Zoning Designation for the project site to establish project-specific design standards pursuant to Article XXVI of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 6 • Vesting Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Article III of Chapter 21 of the Gilroy City Code to subdivide the project site into 32 parcels. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required • Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board - Water Quality Certification (Section 401, Federal Clean Water Act) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Streambed Alteration Agreement (Chapter 1600, State Fish and Game Code) Changes from the Draft Initial Study to the Final Initial Study The following minor changes were made to the Public Review Draft Initial Study and the Final Initial Study. • Biologic Resources – Typographic correction to Section 4.f deleting an incorrect project area (See page 31). • Transportation and Mobility – Provided additional information on VTA bus lines near the project section in Section 17.a (See page 67). 8.B.i Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 7 Figure 1 Regional Location 8.B.i Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 8 Figure 2 Project Vicinity 8.B.i Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 9 Figure 3 Site Images Figure 3-1. View of the Project Site from the middle of the site looking south. Figure 3-2. View of the Project Site from the southwest corner looking northeast. NOTE: The mound of grading spoil material is visible as a small hill on the left edge of the image. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 10 Figure 3-3. Jurisdictional drainage swale from Kern Avenue looking east (in the downstream direction). Figure 3-4. Large mound of previously dumped grading spoil on the northern portion of the site as viewed from the northern property line. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 11 Figure 4 Illustrated Site & Landscape Plan 8.B.i Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 12 Figure 5 Conceptual Phasing Plan Note: The proposed Model Homes are marked with an “M”. The related model home parking, that will be removed during the third and final phase, is marked with a “P”. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 13 Figure 6 Typical Building Front Elevations 8.B.i Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 14 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The following compares the environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Significant Impacts from the Final EIR for 2040 General Plan Additional Site Specific Significant Impacts from Project Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural and Tribal Resources Energy Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfires Stormwater, Flooding, and Groundwater Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise and Vibration Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Mobility Utilities/Service Systems Additional CEQA Topics 8.B.i Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 15 C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature on File Name and Title Date 8.B.i Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 16 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project is contained in the following series of checklists and accompanying narratives. The following notes apply to this section. Notes: 1. "Summary of FEIR Conclusions" describes the results of the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan. This listing provides the baseline analysis that the tiered negative declaration relates to. 2. "Discussion of Project Specific Impacts" assesses the impacts of the Project in the context of the Final Environmental Impact Report and indicates whether additional impacts are expected to occur. This assessment uses three different criteria to compare the specific impacts of the project with the impacts related to the General Plan. • "Result in a New Significant Impact", means that the specific impact of the project result is a new significant unmitigable impact to the environment beyond the impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Reports. • "Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan", means that the Project will result in a specific impact to the environment beyond the impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and will require mitigation. • "Equal or Less Impact", means that the impacts of the Project are consistent with the impacts outlined in the Final Environmental Impact Reports and that no additional analysis is required. 3. "Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project", when indicated, standard permits, practices and requirements that will mitigate or address specific project effects are identified. 4. "Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements", identifies standard code or program requirements that mitigate or reduce potential impacts. These standardized requirements are applied to all projects or activities whether discretionary or ministerial. 5. "Project Specific Mitigation Measures", identifies additional project specific impacts or implement the requirements of the General Plan. The numbering of the mitigation measures in this tiered document are additive to the mitigation measures in the Final EIR. In other words, if there are two mitigation measures in the adopted mitigation monitoring program, an additional project mitigation measure would be identified as mitigation measure #3. 6. “Comments”, provides additional information regarding the impact. For impacts not discussed in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan, refer to Item 7 below. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 17 7 "Conclusion" summarizes the analysis of the Project in the context of the Final Environmental Impact Report and any supplemental project-specific studies that may have been prepared and any project specific mitigation measures. All answers are taken into account, including both on-site and off-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 8 When an impact was not discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan an analysis has been provided to assess the impacts of the Project. The impact descriptions are as follows: • “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. • "Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures reduces an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less-than- significant level. • "Less-Than-Significant Impact” applies where the project will have some level of non- significant impact or change on the environment. • “No Impact” answer indicates that the project would have no impact or effect. A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 8.B.i Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 18 1. A ESTHETICS Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Aesthics. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Affect Panoramic Views of Scenic Hillsides and Open Space. Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. b. Affect the Scenic Character in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Affect Scenic Resources Viewed from Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or U.S. Highway 101. Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. d. Visually Affect Community Gateways. Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. e. Lighting from New Development May Affect Day or Nighttime Views. Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. f. Visual Effects of Walls and/or Fences Over Seven Feet Tall. Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Affect Panoramic Views of Scenic Hillsides and Open Space? b. Affect the Scenic Character in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area? c. Affect Scenic Resources Viewed from Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or U.S. Highway 101? d. Visually Affect Community Gateways? e. Lighting from New Development May Affect Day or Nighttime Views? f. Visual Effects of Walls and/or Fences Over Seven Feet Tall? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 19 Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policy: LU 8.13 Limit Light Pollution Encourage measures to limit light pollution from outdoor sources, and direct outdoor lighting downward and away from sensitive receptors. PFS 8.11 Light Pollution and Glare. Require that light sources and fixtures be selected, designed, and located to minimize light pollution and glare. Comments: a. Affect Panoramic Views – Equal or Less Impact. The project is not located in or adjacent to a scenic hillside or open space area. The site is located on the valley floor within the Urban Growth Boundary, an area where urban development is anticipated. The Project involves the construction of typical two-story residential structures in an area containing primarily one- and two-story residential structures. Consequently, in the visual context of the Planning Area the Project will not stand out or be noticeably visible. As a result, no impacts to panoramic views beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Affect Scenic Character in the Hecker Pass Area – Equal or Less Impact. The project is not located in or adjacent to the area of the Hecker Pass Specific Pla n. In addition, the project is not visible from the area of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. As a result, no impacts to the scenic character in and around the Hecker Pass area would occur. c. Affect Scenic Resources Viewed from Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or U.S. Highway 101 - Equal or Less Impact. The Project is not located at or visible from the Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or U.S. Highway 101. As a result, no impacts to scenic resources as viewed from community gateways would occur. d. Affect a City Gateway – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is not located at or visible from a community gateway. As a result, no impacts to the aesthetics of community gateways beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. e. Light and Glare – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is located on the valley floor within the Urban Growth Boundary, an area where urban development is anticipated. The project would result in additional nighttime lighting as envisioned in the 2040 General Plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. f. High Fences and Walls over Seven Feet in Height – Equal or Less Impact. The Project plans indicate that fencing will 6 feet in height or less. As a result, no impacts will occur due to fences or walls exceeding 7 feet in height. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements None. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 20 Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on aesthetic resources. The Project would not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 21 2. A GRICULTURE AND F ORESTRY R ESOURC ES Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Agricultural Resources. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Convert prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to an urban use? Significant and Unavoidable even with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. b. Conflict with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. c. Other Changes that Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non- Agricultural Use? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Convert prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to an urban use? b. Conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Other Changes that Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non- Agricultural Use? d. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (Government Code section 51104(g))? e. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? f. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ “Memorandum on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Results” prepared by First Carbon Solutions, dated March 25, 2020. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 22 Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project is located in an area identified for future urban development. As implemented by the Zoning Code, the project location is a standard of the General Plan since it encourages . new residential development to locate within the existing Urban Service Area (Policy LU 1.2 Residential Growth). Comments: a. Convert Prime Agricultural Lands – Equal or Less Impact. The site is located within the current Urban Service Area and the Urban Growth Boundary in an area where urban development is anticipated. In addition, an evaluation of the indicated that the conversion of the site to urban uses would not significantly affect agricultural resources. As a result, no impacts to prime agricultural lands beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Conflict with a Williamson Act Contract – Equal or Less Impact. The project site is not affected a Williamson Act contract and is located within the Urban Growth Boundary where urban development is anticipated. As a result, no conflicts with a Williamson Act contract beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Result in Other Changes that Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non- Agricultural Use – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is located within the Urban Growth Boundary in an area where urban development is planned for and anticipated. As a result, no impacts to agricultural lands beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. d - f. Impacts to Timberlands: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the impacts of the General Plan to forest or timber lands. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR. No Impact. The Project is not located in an area used or zoned for forest product or timber production. The site is currently covered by ruderal non-native grass lands. As a result, no impacts would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements None. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did identify significant impacts due to the conversation of agricultural lands within the Planning Area. However, the project site is located within the City Limits in an area planned for non-agricultural use. As a result, the Project would not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan which included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In addition, as discussed above, no impacts to forestry resources will occur as a result of this Project. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 23 3. A IR Q UAL I TY Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Air Quality. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan and with the addition of expanded General Plan Policies to the Natural Resource Conservation Element. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 added General Plan Policy NCR 3.15 Reduce Construction Emissions, to require the use of low emission construction equipment; and Mitigation Measure NCR 3.16 Implement Dust-Control Measures, to require BAAQMD dust control for all projects. b. Increase in Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Resulting from an Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled Will Degrade Air Quality? Significant and Unavoidable even with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. c. Adverse Effects to Sensitive Receptors from Toxic Air Contaminants? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan, and with the addition of expanded General Plan Policies to the Natural Resource Conservation Element. Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5 which added the following policies to the General Plan: NCR 3.17 Sensitive Receptors within 500 feet of U.S. Highway 101, NCR 3.18 Sensitive Receptors within 500 feet of Existing Point Sources or Existing Heavy Industrial Designated Areas, and NCR 3-19 New Industrial Uses within 500 feet of Sensitive Receptors. d. Adverse Effects from Odors? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan? 8.B.i Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 24 Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan b. Increase in Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Resulting from an Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled Will Degrade Air Quality? c. Adverse Effects to Sensitive Receptors from Toxic Air Contaminants? d. Adverse Effects from Odors? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ "The Cottages at Kern - Construction Community Risk Assessment" prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, dated February 10, 2021. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policies: NCR 3.15 Reduce Construction Emissions. Require the use of low emissions construction equipment for public and private projects, consistent with the air district 2017 Clean Air Plan. Where construction-related emissions would exceed the applicable Thresholds of Significance, the City will consider, on a case-by-case basis, implementing Additional Construction Mitigation Measures (Table 8-3 in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines). This requirement will be implemented through standard requirements Number 1. NCR 3.16 Implement Dust-Control Measures. Require the implementation of the air district’s dust control measures during construction of individual projects, consistent with the air district 2017 Clean Air Plan. This requirement will be implemented through the standard requirements Number 2. Comments: a. Conflict with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan – Equal or Less Impact. The 2040 General Plan contains policies and implementation programs which support the local implementation of the Clean Air Plan. The project does not exceed any of the potential significance thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) that could mandate a full project specific air quality analysis. The lowest BAAQMD analysis threshold for single family residential products is 56 residential units (for operational impacts). Since the project consists of only 29 units, t he proposed project would not result in an impact different than the potential effects described in the Final EIR. As a result, no conflicts with a BAAQMD Clean Air Plan beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, would occur. b. Increase Criteria Pollutants – Equal or Less Impact. The Project involves the construction of 29 single family dwelling units. According to BAAQMD’s screening threshold for criteria pollutants from a single family residential project is 325 dwelling units. Because the Project is much smaller and as well as being consistent with the development 8.B.i Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 25 density/intensity projected by the General Plan. The FEIR which included a statement of overriding considerations due to an increase in operational critical pollutants associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). As such, the Project would not result in an impact different the potential effects described in the Final EIR. Development and business activities consistent with the General Plan would result in a significant increase in criteria pollutants during the time-span of the 2040 General Plan. As a result, no impacts, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, would occur. c. Impact Sensitive Receptors – Equal or Less Impact. The proposed project will result in project specific impacts related to construction that are similar to the effects described in the Final EIR. Impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing new sensitive receptors, such as residential uses, in proximity to existing sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) or by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Temporary project c onstruction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis that could affect nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, hospitals, and medical clinics). Since the project is a residential project in a residential area, the primary community health risks are associated with project construction on adjacent existing residents. Based on modeling of health risk, the combination of TAC exposures from the project and nearby existing sources of TACs was evaluated. For cumulative community risk impacts, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that lead agencies consider sources of TAC emissions located within 1,000 feet of the residential Most Effected Individual (MEI). The MEI is the person (receptor) that would have the highest potential TAC exposure caused by the project. For this study, the most effected individual was determined to be an infant located in the residence at 9190 Kern Avenue. As shown in Table 1 below, the cumulative cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and related hazard index associated with project construction. Table 1 - Combined Community TAC Sources, Most Effected Individual Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3) Hazard Index Project Impacts Project Construction: Unmitigated Mitigated * 28.7 2.1 0.16 0.04 0.02 <0.01 BAAQMD Single Source Threshold 10.0 0.3 1.0 Exceeds Threshold with Mitigation? No No No Nearby Cumulative Source Mantelli Drive (ADT 10,800) 0.1 0.01 <0.01 Combined Cumulative & Project Sources Total Combined Sources Unmitigated Mitigated * 28.8 2.2 0.17 0.05 <0.03 <0.02 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100.0 0.8 10.0 Exceeds Threshold with Mitigation? No No No * Mitigated through Standard Requirements 1 and 2. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 26 As shown in Table 1, the cumulative cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and hazard index associated with project construction do not exceed the established significance thresholds. The impact assessment identified that the requirements contained in Standard Requirements 1 and 2 will reduce PM2.5 emissions from project construction and mitigate the potential effects from project construction. These measures, combined with the City’s standard conditions of approval, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to community risk caused by construction activities. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report are anticipated. d. Create Objectionable Odors – Equal or Less Impact. The project could result in localized odors during project construction (e.g. diesel exhaust, glues, and coatings) and during when the occupancy (e.g. cooking). These emissions might be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors. However, they would be localized and are not likely to adversely affect people off site by resulting in confirmed odor complaints. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirements implemented through the conditions of project approval will reduce potential air quality impacts to a less than significant level. 1. Use construction equipment that has low diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions: During any construction period the applicant shall prepare a plan to reduce emissions such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit. The following feasible measures to achieve a 66 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust (in comparison to the emissions from uncontrolled equipment) could involve the following: • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). • The use of construction equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control. • The use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 2. Include basic measures to control dust and exhaust during construction. During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices required for all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 27 3. All visible mud or dirt track-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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. 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. 6. 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. Clear signage, that provides regulations for idling times, shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. 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. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None Required. Conclusion: The general air quality impacts of the project are included in the anticipated future development from the 2040 General Plan. Project specific impacts are addressed through the implementation of two standards requirements. These mitigation measures will ensure that temporary project construction impacts will be reduced to Less Than Significant levels. As a result, the Project's air quality impacts would not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan, which included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 28 4. B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Biologic Resources. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Adverse Effect on Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species and Protected Nesting Birds? Less than Significant with additional mitigation included in the Final EIR. This additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 modified the proposed language for General Plan Policy NCR 1.7 - Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species, to further reduce any impacts to these biologic resources. b. Adverse Effect on Sensitive Natural Communities? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 also reduce any impacts. c. Adverse Effect on Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways? Less than Significant with additional mitigation included in the Final EIR. This additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 added a new policy to the 2040 General Plan. Policy NCR 1.13 - Assess Potential Wetland Impacts, requires that applicants with potential jurisdictional wetlands or waterways retain a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to conduct a site investigation and assess the potential impact. d. Adverse Effect on Wildlife Movement? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. e. Adverse Effect on Regulated Trees? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. f. No Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? No Impact. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Adverse Effect on Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species and Protected Nesting Birds? 8.B.i Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 29 Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan b. Adverse Effect on Sensitive Natural Communities? c. Adverse Effect on Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways? d. Adverse Effect on Wildlife Movement? e. Adverse Effect on Regulated Trees? f. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ "Biological Resource Assessment for Kern and St. Clar Project" prepared by Coast Ridge Ecology, dated February 10, 2021. ➢ “Kern and St Clar Project, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Application for Private Project , Supplemental Attachment” prepared by HT Harvey Ecological Consultants, September 3, 2020. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policies related to biologic resources. NCR 1.1 Habitat Plan Compliance. For all covered activities throughout the city, comply fully with permit conditions of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. This will protect natural r esources by minimizing impacts on sensitive natural communities and 18 covered species, facilitating wildlife movement, and establishing stream setbacks and buffers. Associated permit fees will be used for reserve system preservation, habitat enhancement and restoration, and adaptive management and monitoring. Habitat Plan compliance is addressed under impact “f”” below and incorporated into the standard requirements. NCR 1.7 Special Status. Species Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected Species. For special-status species that are not among the 18 covered species in the Habitat Plan, minimize future development in areas that support such species. Conduct focused surveys per applicable regulatory agency protocols as appropriate to determine if such species occur on a given project site, as determined necessary by a qualified biologist. If development of occupied habitat must occur, species impacts shall be avoided or minimized, and if required by a regulatory agency or the CEQA process, loss of wildlife habitat or individual plants should be fully compensated on the site. If off-site mitigation is necessary, it should occur within the Gilroy Planning Area whenever possible with a priority given to existing habitat mitigation banks. Habitat mitigation shall be accompanied by a long-term management plan and monitoring program prepared by a qualified biologist and include 8.B.i Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 30 provisions for protection of mitigation lands in perpetuity through the establishment of easements and adequate funding for maintenance and monitoring. This policy is incorporated into the standard requirements. NCR 1.8 Native Nesting Bird Protection. Protect native nesting birds, which are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. This policy is incorporated into the standard requirements. NCR 1.13 Assess Potential Wetland Impacts. Applicants of projects on sites where potential jurisdictional wetlands or waterways are present shall retain a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to conduct a site investigation and assess whether wetland or waterway features are jurisdictional with regard to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). This investigation will include assessing potential impacts to wetland and riparian habitats and determining whether any stream buffers/riparian setbacks are required by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. If a feature is found to be jurisdictional or potentially jurisdictional, the applicant shall comply with the appropriate permitting process with each agency claiming jurisdiction prior to disturbance of the feature, and a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory specialist shall conduct a detailed wetland delineation if necessary. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special studies and the standard requirements. Comments: a. Adverse Effect on Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species and Protected Nesting Birds – Equal or Less Impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan assessed the generalize potential for impacts to special status species. A project specific assessment was conducted of the site. The assessment identified a number of common species on and around the site including: Anna's hummingbird, Turkey vulture, Rock pigeon, American crow, Brewer's blackbird, House finch, House sparrow, Vesper sparrow, Ruby-crowned kinglet, Black phoebe, Yellow-rumped warbler, Eurasian collared- dove, Western meadowlark, Mule deer (from scat), Botta’s pocket gopher (from burrows), and the Sierran treefrog. No special status species were identified. However, because a number of sensitive species are known to existing in the Planning Area, there is the potential for an impact to several sensitive species when project construction occurs. These potential impacts are addressed by the standard requirements listed below. With the implementation of the standard requirements and the provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan discussed below, no new or more severe impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Adverse Effect on Sensitive Natural Communities – Equal or Less Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped and is partially surrounded by urban development. According to the Biologic Resource Assessment, other than the seasonal wetland discussed under discussion 4.c. below, there are no sensitive natural communities on the project site. As a result, no impacts to sensitive natural communities beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Adverse Effect on Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways – Equal or Less Impact. The project site contains a seasonal wetland in a shallow swale which extends eastward 8.B.i Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 31 from Kern Avenue across the site. The swale is approximately three feet wide and one foot deep along most of its length. There are no ponds or perennial wetlands on, or adjacent to the site. The western end of the swale is a twelve-inch culvert with transports road runoff. The seasonal wetland is dominated by Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum). Both species are found in both wetland and non-wetland locations. Other plant species in the swale include common vetch (Vicia sativa), wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and wild chicory (Cichorium intybys). The area of seasonal wetland is approximately 0.044 acres. Project construction will impact all of this seasonal wetland. The impact will be addressed through the implementation of Standard Requirement 6. d. Adverse Effect on Wildlife Movement – Equal or Less Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped and is substantially surrounded by urban development. The project area is unlikely to provide a movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife due to the surrounding residential development and the lack of wildlife sign observed during the site survey. While the proposed development project would create a barrier to wildlife movement, the lack of suitable breeding, foraging, or other habitat in the project area suggests this would have a generally low impact on local species. As a result, no impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. e. Conflict with Local Ordinances – Equal or Less Impact. The Project will not conflict with any local ordinances affecting biologic resources, including significant trees. There are no significant trees on the project site. As a result, no impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. f. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan – Equal or Less Impact. A habitat conservation plan (HCP) extends a federally granted endangered species permit (i.e. take authorization) to all projects and activities it covers. The HCP process recognizes the impact of land use activities and establishes a program to provide for a net benefit to specific species. The project site is located within the boundary of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP). The site is less than two acres in size and has a land cover designation of Urban- Suburban and is not known to contain habitat for any of the Plan species. The SCVHP meets the requirements federal Endangered Species Act and enables local agencies to allow projects and activities to occur in endangered species’ habitats. In exchange, those projects and activities must incorporate HCP-prescribed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse effects on natural communities and endangered species. A key component of the of the SCVHP in urbanized/Suburban environs is the payment of required impact fees. The Project will be required to comply with the provisions of the Habitat Plan and identified as standard requirements. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirements will reduce potential biologic resource impacts to a less than significant level and implement the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. 3. Payment of SCVHP Impact Fees Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project shall pay the required HCP impact fees. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 32 4. Nesting Bird Protection If Project related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct two surveys for active bird nests. A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted. If active bird nests are detected, a suitable nest buffer should be installed (typically between 50 to 250 feet, depending on species) as recommended by the biologist. The buffer shall be clearly marked. If buffer establishment is not possible, work will cease in the area until young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. The buffer will be maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. If tree removal and grading activities occur outside of the nesting bird season, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds are not necessary. 5. Special Status Species Protection Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to confirm that the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and American badger are not on the project site. If any of these species are identified onsite or an area affected by construction, the requirements of USFWS and/or CDFW shall be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts, including but not limited to the installation and monitoring of exclusionary fencing, an education training for all contractors working on site, and on-site monitoring by a qualified biologist or trained biological monitor. 6. Wetland Permits Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits and clearances from Federal, State, and regional agencies for affects to the identified seasonal wetland. Evidence of permit issuance shall be provided to the Planning Division. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The general impacts to biologic resources are included in the anticipated future development from the 2040 General Plan. Project specific impacts are addressed through the implementation of the standard requirements identified above and will ensure that any project impacts will be Less Than Significant. As a result, the Project's impacts to biological resources would not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 33 5. C ULTURAL AND T RIBAL R ESOURCES Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Cutural and Tribal Resources. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historic Resource? Less than Significant with additional mitigation included in the Final EIR. This additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measure CR-1 modifies Goal NCR 5, Policy NCR 5.5, NCR 5.10, and Implementation Program 7 to further reduce any impacts to cultural resources. b. Adverse Change in the Significance of a Unique Archaeological Resource? Less than Significant with additional mitigation included in the Final EIR. This additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measure CR-2 modifies Goal NCR 5, Policy NCR 5.2, NCR 5.5, and Implementation Program 7 to further reduce any impacts to cultural resources. c. Disturb Native American Human Remains? Less than Significant with additional mitigation included in the Final EIR. This additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 to further reduce any impacts to cultural resource. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historic Resource? b. Adverse Change in the Significance of a Unique Archaeological Resource? c. Disturb Native American Human Remains? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ "Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment - Kern Avenue Residential Project, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California", prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, dated February 24, 2021. This report contains confidential information and is not available for public review. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 34 Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policies: NCR 5.2 Historic and Pre-historic Archaeological Resources and CEQA. Discretionary projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which include disturbance of the existing ground surface of the project site will require an archaeological survey and records search if the project site is located in a moderate to high archaeological sensitivity zone as identified on Figure 3.5-1 of the General Plan EIR, or if other evidence suggests the project site to be archaeologically sensitive. The site is located in an area of Low Archeologic Sensitivity. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special study. NCR 5.3 Archaeological Resources Protection. Ensure that all projects involving ground- disturbing activities include procedures to protect archaeological resources if discovered during excavation. Projects shall follow CEQA and other applicable State laws. A cultural resource survey was conducted for the project site. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special study and the standard requirements. Comments: a. Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historic Resource – Equal or Less Impact. The project site vacant. The Cultural Resources Assessment also did not identify any historic resources on the project site. As a result, no impacts to historic resources, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan, would occur. b. Adverse Change in the Significance of a Unique Archeologic Resource – Equal or Less Impact. Tribal cultural resource representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) were identified and consulted with in compliance with the provisions of AB 52 (2013). None of the contacted Tribal organizations contacted requested a consultation on the Project. In addition, the Cultural Resources Assessment did not identify any historic resources on the project site but did recommend a mitigation measure, identified as Standard Requirement 7, to address the inadvertent discovery of archeologic or tribal resources consistent with the General Plan. The mitigation measure would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. .As a result, no impacts to archeologic or tribal resources, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan, would occur. c. Disturb Native American Human Remains – Equal or Less Impact. The Cultural Resources Assessment did not identify any locations of human remains onsite but did recommend a mitigation measure, identified as Standard Requirement 8, to address the inadvertent discovery of human remains during project construction consistent with the General Plan. The mitigation measure would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan, would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirements will reduce potential cultural resource impacts to a less than significant level. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 35 7. Perform Construction Monitoring, Evaluate Uncovered Archaeological Features, and Mitigate Potential Disturbance for Cultural Resources. Prior to grading or excavation on the Project site, the applicant shall hire a qualified professional archaeologist (i.e., one who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications for archaeology or one under the supervision of such a professional) to monitor all ground disturbing activities, to the extent determined necessary by the archaeologist. In the event that any prehistoric or historic-period subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including darkened soil (midden), that could conceal cultural deposits, animal bone, obsidian and/or mortar are discovered during earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately, and the Planning and Building Divisions shall be notified within 24 hours. City staff may consult with the project archeologist to assess the significance of the find. If Native American archaeological, ethnographic, or spiritual resources are discovered, all identification and treatment of the resources shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. If tribal cultural representatives identified he NAHC fail to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall either rebury all Native American tribal cultural resources on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance, or be handled in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation and acceptable to the Planning and Building Divisions. 8. Comply with State Regulations Regarding the Discovery of Human Remains at the Project Site. If human remains are discovered during any construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within fifty feet of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately (according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code) and the Planning and Building Divisions shall be notified and all ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of where the remains were discovered shall cease. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within twenty-four hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may 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 any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC; the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and all associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: If the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendations of the most likely descendant, the matter shall be referred to the City. The City may retain the services of a professional archeologist of the City's choosing to provided technical assistance. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs. No construction activity on the site shall be allowed to continue until the disagreement is resolved. The Planning Division shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of state law, as set 8.B.i Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 36 forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The general impacts cultural and tribal resources are included in the anticipated future development from the 2040 General Plan. Project specific impacts are addressed through the implementation of standard requirements listed above. These mitigation measures will ensure that any project impacts will be Less Than Significant. As a result, the Project's air quality impacts would not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 37 6. E NERGY C ONSERVATION Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Energy. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Development Consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Would Increase Energy Use but Would not Result in Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. b. Development Consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Would Not Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency? No Impact. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Development Consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Would Increase Energy Use but Would not Result in Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources? b. Development Consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Would Not Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policies: LU 8.12 Outdoor Lighting Energy. Efficiency Select outdoor lighting fixtures to provide maximum energy efficiency as well as effective lighting. PFS 8.4 Energy Conservation. Reduce energy consumption by encouraging the use of green building technologies, supporting the use of alternative energy sources, and disseminating public information regarding energy conservation techniques. PFS 8.10 Outdoor Lighting and Energy Efficiency. Select outdoor lamps and light fixtures that maximize energy efficiency, provide effective lighting, and are compatible with the neighborhood context. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 38 Comments: a. Development Consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Would Increase Energy Use but Would not Result in Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and is development envisioned by the General Plan. As a result, no energy impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Development Consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Would Not Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and does not involve components that would conflict or obstruct the implementation of any plan to achieve renewable energy or energy efficiency goals. As a result, no energy impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements 9. During the approval and construction phases, the Project will be required to comply with the Requirements contained in Title 24 Energy Efficiency, contained in Chapter 6 of the Gilroy Municipal Code. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 39 7. G EOLOGY AND S OILS Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Geology and Soils. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Fault Ruptures? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. b. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Seismic Ground Shaking? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Seismically-Induced Ground Failure? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. d. Expose People or Structures to or Injury Involving Seismically-Induced Landslides? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. e. Result in Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. f. Development Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil and Potentially Result in On- or Off-Site Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. g. Development Located on Expansive Soil, Creating Risks to Life or Property? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Fault Ruptures? b. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Seismic Ground Shaking? c. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Seismically-Induced Ground Failure? d. Expose People or Structures to or Injury Involving Seismically-Induced Landslides? 8.B.i Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 40 Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan e. Result in Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil? f. Development Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil and Potentially Result in On- or Off-Site Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse? g. Development Located on Expansive Soil, Creating Risks to Life or Property? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ “Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at Kern Avenue”, prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc, dated March 25, 2020. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policies: PH 1.1 Location of Future Development. Allow development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of residents can be adequately mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. This applies to development in areas subject to flood damage, fire damage, or geological hazard due to their location and/or design. PH 2.2 Site Investigation and Mitigation. Ensure proper soils and geologic site investigation and appropriate mitigation for development proposals in areas of unconsolidated fill, and areas subject to seasonal high groundwater tables or other potentially unstable soils. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special study. PH 2.5 Geologic Hazards Reports. Require geologic hazards reports for all new development applications to assess potential geologic hazards and to determine if these hazards can be adequately mitigated. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special study. PH 2.6 Erosion and Deposition Control. Require all new development proposals to include a site plan detailing appropriate methods of erosion and deposition control during site development and subsequent use. This policy is implement through the standard requirements. Comments: a. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Fault Ruptures – Equal or Less Impact. The Project site is located within this seismically active region but is not located in any identified earthquake fault rupture zones. As a result, no impacts from surface fault ruptures, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 41 b. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Seismic Ground Shaking - Equal or Less Impact. The Project site is located within this seismically active region and has the potential to experience seismic ground shaking as described in the Final EIR. As a result, no impacts from seismic ground shaking, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan, would occur. c. Expose People or Structures to Loss or Injury Involving Seismically-Induced Ground Failure – Equal or Less-Impact. The site is located within this seismically active region. However onsite soils are relatively stable lacking the characteristics associated with The Geotechnical Investigation did not identify subsurface soils that were prone ground failure. As a result, no impacts beyond those in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. d. Expose People or Structures to or Injury Involving Seismically-Induced Landslides – Equal or Less impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the site is not located in an area prone to seismically induced landslides. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. e. Result in Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil – Equal or Less Impact. The site is relatively level, except for the mounds of previously dumped grading spoil. Standard erosion control measures will reduce soil erosion from project construction. With this standard requirement it is unlikely to normally result in soil erosion or the loss of top soil. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. f. Development Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil and Potentially Result in On- or Off-Site Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse – Equal or Less Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the site is not located in an area containing an unstable geologic units. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirements will reduce potential geotechnical and soil-related impacts to a less than significant level. 10. Implement Erosion Control Measures Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plan shall incorporate erosion control measures to prevent the eroded material from being transported off-site. 11. Final Geotechnical Investigation Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submittal of a final geotechnical investigation will be required. The recommendations contained in the final investigation will minimize the impacts from geologic and soil hazards. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan 8.B.i Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 42 could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 43 8. G REENHOUSE G AS E MISSIONS Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Generate a Volume of GHG Emissions in 2040 That May Have a Significant Impact on Climate Change? Significant and Unavoidable even with the additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan and Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 to modify Policy NCR 3.14 and GHG-2 with the addition of Implementation Action CAP-37. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. b. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions? Significant and Unavoidable even with the additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan and Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 to modify Policy NCR 3.14 and GHG-2 with the addition of Implementation Action CAP-37. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Generate a Volume of GHG Emissions in 2040 That May Have a Significant Impact on Climate Change? b. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None (the Project is below the established screening thresholds). Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policy in addiiton to the policies identifed for air quality: M 1.7 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions by developing a transportation network that makes it convenient to use transit, ride a bicycle, walk, or use other non-automobile modes of transportation. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 44 Comments: a. Generate a Volume of GHG Emissions in 2040 That May Have a Significant Impact on Climate Change in Significant GHG Emissions – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is consistent with the General Plan which recognized that significant impacts from greenhouse gas emissions will result in. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. In addition, as discussed under the Air Quality discussion, the project is smaller than BAAQMD’s screening thresholds and no additional analysis was performed. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. b. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is consistent with the General Plan which recognized that significant impacts from greenhouse gas emissions will result from the existing and proposed land uses and activities identified in the General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. In addition, as discussed under the Air Quality discussion, the project is smaller than BAAQMD’s screening thresholds and no additional analysis was performed. As a result, no beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The Project includes the construction of pedestrian facilities along the project frontage. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None Required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan which included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 45 9 . H AZARDS , H AZARDOUS M ATERIALS , AND W ILDFIRES Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Create a Hazard to the Public or Environment Through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. b. Create a Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. d. Inclusion of a Site Which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. e. The 2040 General Plan Would Not Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan? No Impact. f. Expose People and Structures to a Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or Where Residences are Intermixed with Wildlands? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Create a Hazard to the Public or Environment Through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials? b. Create a Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of 8.B.i Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 46 Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan Hazardous Materials into the Environment? c. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School? d. Inclusion of a Site Which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? e. The 2040 General Plan Would Not Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan? f. Expose People and Structures to a Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or Where Residences are Intermixed with Wildlands? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policy: PH 4.2 Development Review. Provide plan checks for new construction, remodels, tenant improvements, and demolitions to ensure compliance with applicable life safety and fire protection system requirements, including special requirements for fire safety in areas with wildfire risk. This policy is implemented through the application review and approval process. Comments: a. Create a Hazard to the Public or Environment Through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials – Equal or Less Impact. The project does not involve the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, though some limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials could be involved in project construction. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Create a Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment – Equal or Less Impact. The project would not involve any significant storage of hazardous materials on site or generate hazardous waste to cause release of detectable amounts of hazardous materials into the environment (beyond amounts typical 8.B.i Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 47 of residential activities). This means that the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School – Equal or Less Impact. The project will not result in the emission of hazardous emissions. As a result, no impacts to adopted evacuation emergency response or evacuation plans, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. d. Inclusion of a Site Which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 - Equal or Less Impact. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous waste and substances site list, also known as the “Cortese List.” A government database search was performed in order to identify whether the project site or sites in the v icinity are listed as a Cortese or a hazardous materials site. Neither the project site nor the adjacent sites are included on the Cortese list. As a result, no impacts to adopted evacuation emergency response or evacuation plans, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. e. The 2040 General Plan Would Not Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan – Equal or Less Impact. The project will not alter or affect the existing road pattern and is not expected to impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts to adopted evacuation emergency response or evacuation plans, beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. f. Expose People and Structures to a Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or Where Residences are Intermixed with Wildlands – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is located within an largely urbanized area in the City of Gilroy. The closest High Fire Hazard area is west of Santa Teresa Boulevard approximately ¾ of a mile west of the site (according to the Fire Hazards Severity Zones maps published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). This issue is addressed in the 2040 General Plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements None. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 48 10. S TORMWATER , F LOODING , AND G ROUNDWATER Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Aesthics. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Diminished Water Quality from Storm Water Pollutants? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. b. Increased Storm Water Runoff? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Expose People to Flooding Risks by Placing Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. d. Expose People or Structures to Hazards from Flooding as a Result of Dam Failure? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. e. Deplete Groundwater Supplies? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. f. Interfere with Groundwater Recharge? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Diminished Water Quality from Storm Water Pollutants? b. Increased Storm Water Runoff? c. Expose People to Flooding Risks by Placing Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area? d. Expose People or Structures to Hazards from Flooding as a Result of Dam Failure? e. Deplete Groundwater Supplies? f. Interfere with Groundwater Recharge? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ “Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan for The Cottages at Kern" prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated September 2020. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 49 Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policies: NCR 1.14 Maintain Pre-Project Stormwater Flows. Encourage project design for smaller projects in the areas of the unconfined Llagas sub-basin to maintain pre-project stormwater flows consistent with City stormwater standards that prohibit offsite discharge up to the 95th percentile storm event for Tier 3 projects, allow treat and release for Tier 2 projects, and allow a more passive, ‘best practices’ design to minimize runoff for Tier 1 projects. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special study. NCR 4.4 Abandoned and Unused Wells. Require developers to identify and seal abandoned and unused wells within their developments in accordance with the City and Valley Water requirements. This policy is implemented through the standard requirements. PH 1.1 Location of Future Development. Allow development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of residents can be adequately mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. This applies to development in areas subject to flood damage, fire damage, or geological hazard due to their location and/or design. This policy was addressed with the General Plan Land Use Plan. PH 2.6 Erosion and Deposition Control. Require all new development proposals to include a site plan detailing appropriate methods of erosion and deposition control during site development and subsequent use. This policy is implemented through the standard requirements. PH 3.1 Development Restrictions in Flood Areas. Ensure all new development on publicly and privately owned land within flood prone, mudslide, or flood related erosion areas (as indicated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the flood hazards zones or in Ordinance no. 2017-01) incorporate uniform enforceable measures that reduce losses due to flood related hazards to an acceptable level of risk. This policy was addressed with the General Plan Land Use Plan. PH 3.6 Permeable Surfaces for Runoff Reduction and Absorption. Require new development to include landscaped areas for reducing runoff and increasing runoff absorption capacities and encourage the use of permeable paving materials. This policy is incorporated into the previously identified special study. Comments: a. Diminished Water Quality from Storm Water Pollutants - Equal or Less Impact. The Project involves the development of a vacant, largely pervious site. Development of site will result in a change in the character of any stormwater runoff. This effect was evaluated in the environmental impact report for the general plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 50 b. Increased Stormwater Runoff – Equal or Less Impact. The Project involves the development of a vacant, largely pervious site. The increase in impervious area will increase the amount of stormwater runoff. This effect was evaluated in the environmental impact report for the general plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Expose People to Flooding Risks by Placing Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area – Equal or Less Impact. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for this portion of Gilroy, the site and adjacent areas are not within the 100-Year floodway (i.e. areas having a one percent annual probability of inundation). As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. d. Expose People or Structures to Hazards from Flooding as a Result of Dam Failure – Equal or Less Impact. The project site is within identified dam inundation area for the Anderson Valley Dam. In the event of a catastrophic dam failure, flood waters would reach the site in about 10 hours. This effect was evaluated in the environmental impact report for the general plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. e. Deplete Groundwater Resources - Equal or Less Impact. The City of Gilroy relies on groundwater from the underlying Llagas Groundwater Basin. The Basin is managed to provide water for both agriculture and urban uses. The Project will result in the use of water for both residential and landscaping purposes. This water use by the Project is anticipated by the General Plan and in the management of the groundwater basin. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. f. Interfere with Groundwater Recharge – Equal or Less Impact. The project site is currently vacant and provides some increment of groundwater recharge. The project will be required to retain the design rainfall events which could result some potential recharge of groundwater. The impact on groundwater recharge within the Planning Area was addressed in the environmental impact report for the General Plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 12. Water Efficient Irrigation Implementation of the requirements of Article XXXVIII. Landscaping, Water Efficiency, and Storm Water Retention and Treatment will reduce water use. 13. Proper Closure of Abandoned Wells. The Project will comply with the provisions of Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance No. 90-1 regulating the classification, construction and destruction of wells and other deep excavations; requiring the destruction of abandoned or unused wells; adopting water contamination hazard standards; and making violation a misdemeanor. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None Required. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 51 Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 52 1 1 . L AND U SE AND P LANNING Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan, and the General Plan document itself evaluated Planning Area-wide impacts to land use and planning issues. However the analysis was not adequate to evaluate these topics on the scale of a small project. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land-use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policy that are incorporated into the design of the Project: LU 3.4 Compatible Lotting Pattern. For infill projects where there is an established pattern of lot sizes abutting a project site, new development should reflect the existing lotting pattern, particularly the lot width of parcels directly across an existing street. This policy was addressed by the layout of the proposed project and the requirements of the Planned Unit Development combining district. Comments: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate these General Plan impacts. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR for the General Plan. a. Divide the Community – No Impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the specific impacts of this Project. The Project involves the development of two existing lots consistent that will not alter the existing or proposed road network or create a barrier that would isolate any portion of the Planning Area and is not in 8.B.i Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 53 a location where it could divide an established community. As a result, the Project will not physically divide an established community and no impacts are anticipated. b. Conflict with Local Plans – No Impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the compliance of the Project with the 2040 General Plan. The Project is consistent with the Land Use Plan, goals and policies contained in the 2040 General Plan (and its implementing provisions). As a result, no impacts will occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements None. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None Required. Conclusion: The Project will not result in an adverse environmental impact to Land Use and Planning issues since the project will not create a barrier to divide the community and is consistent with the General Plan. No impacts to these issues will occur. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 54 12. M INERA L R ESOURCES Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Mineral Resources. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource of Value to the Region and Residents of the State or a Locally- Important Resource Recovery Site Identified in the General Plan? No Impact. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource of Value to the Region and Residents of the State or a Locally- Important Resource Recovery Site Identified in the General Plan? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: None. Comments: a. Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resource – Equal or Less Impact. According to the Department of Mines and Geology the project site is located in an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone 1, locations where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The significance threshold is a project in an area classified as MRZ-2. Because the site is not located in an area classified as MRZ-2, no impacts to known mineral resources are expected to occur. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements None. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 55 Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 56 13. N OISE AND V IBRATION Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Noise and Vibration. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Increased Vehicular Traffic and Transpor- tation and Infrastructure Improvements Would Result in Existing Sensitive Land Uses Being Exposed to Noise Levels in Excess of Noise Thresholds? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. b. Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Could be Exposed to New Stationary and Local Noise Sources? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Construction Noise Would Cause a Temporary or Periodic Increase in Noise Exposure Above Ambient Noise Levels? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. d. Demolition and Construction Activities Vibration Levels? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Increased Vehicular Traffic and Transportation and Infrastructure Improvements Would Result in Existing Sensitive Land Uses Being Exposed to Noise Levels in Excess of Noise Thresholds? b. Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Could be Exposed to New Stationary and Local Noise Sources? c. Construction Noise Would Cause a Temporary or Periodic Increase in Noise Exposure Above Ambient Noise Levels? d. Demolition and Construction Activities Vibration Levels? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 8.B.i Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 57 Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ “The Cottages at Kern Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment”, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, dated February 10, 2021. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policies: PH 6.10 Construction Noise. Require proposed development projects subject to discretionary approval to assess potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and to minimize impacts on those uses, to the extent feasible. This policy is implemented through the standard requirements. PH 6.11 Construction and Maintenance Noise Limits. Limit the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day (7:00am to 7:00pm Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 7:00 pm on Saturdays). Construction hours that vary from these timeframes may be approved by the Building Official, in conformance with Article XVI. Hours of Construction of the Gilroy City Code. This policy is implemented through the standard requirements. PH 6.12 Vibration Impact Assessment. Require a vibration impact assessment for proposed development projects in which heavy-duty construction equipment would be used (e.g. pile driving, bulldozing) within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor. If applicable, require all feasible mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure that no damage or disturbance to structures or sensitive receptors would occur. This policy is addressed through the previously mentioned special study. Comments: a. Increased Vehicular Traffic and Transportation and Infrastructure Improvements Levels in Excess of Standards – Equal or Less Impact. The noise environment in this location is dominated by traffic noise along Kern Avenue, though some noise from other sources, such as Union Pacific Railroad tracks and US 101, located about 2/3 of a mile and a mile respectively from the site, is noticeable during periods of low ambient noise. The street frontage of the site is located in 60 – 65 dB contour line. The back portions of the site will have future roadway noise levels below 55 dB. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Noise-Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses – Equal or Less Impact. The proposed residential land use is considered to be a sensitive land use for noise. The area noise environment is dominated by local traffic noise, most noticeably from traffic along Kern Avenue. The Project will be required to comply the City’s adopted indoor noise requirements as required by the General Plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Construction Noise Would Cause Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise – Equal or Less Impact. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise- generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise- sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities 8.B.i Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 58 occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Chapter 16 of the City of Gilroy Municipal Code limits the allowable construction hours. compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code during construction activities. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. d. Exposure to Excessive Vibration – Equal or Less Impact. During Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.), may generate noticeable vibration in the immediate vicinity. Vibration levels can vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. This impact was identified in the environmental impact report for the General Plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. e. Impacts Airfield Generated Noise: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the impacts of the General Plan to noise from airports or airfields. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR. No Impact. The closest airfield is approximately 3.5 miles north northeast of the project site. The Project is also located outside of the Airport Influence Area and outside of any of the identified noise contours. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirement will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 14. Compliance with Construction Noise Ordinance. During construction, the Project will be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Gilroy Municipal Code. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. In addition, no airport-related noise impacts are expected to occur. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 59 14. P OPULATION AND H OUSING Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan, and the General Plan document itself, did evaluate Planning Area-wide impacts to both population and housing. However the analysis was not adequate to evaluate these topics on the scale of a small project. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project is consistent with the provisions of the 2040 General Plan which lays out the blueprint for future housing, population, and employment. Consistency with the General Plan is the standard requirement for all development projects. Comments: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate these General Plan impacts. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR. a. Population Growth – No impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not directly evaluate the potential population growth on the project site. The Project involves the construction and operation of 29 single lot family residences consistent with the Land Use Designation on the General Plan. Using the density range and typical per household from the General Plan, development of the site could contain a total population of between 83 and 207 persons, in a multi-family environmental. The proposed small lot single family residential project would have an estimated population of 95 persons. Because the anticipated population is within the range of populations envisioned by the General Plan, no impacts will occur. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 60 b. Displace Existing Housing Units – No Impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the potential impacts associated with the displacement of exiting housing units. The Project involves a residential development on two vacant parcels that do not contain any existing residential units. As a result, no housing units will be displaced by the Project and no impacts are anticipated. c. Displace Existing People – No Impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the potential impacts of displacing onsite populations. The Project involves a residential development on two vacant, unoccupied parcels. As a result, no people will be displaced by the Project and no impacts are anticipated. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements None. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 61 15. P UBLIC S ERVICES Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Aesthics. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. No Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New Police Protection Facilities? No Impact. b. Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New or Modified Fire Service Facilities? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New or Modified School Facilities? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. No Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New Police Protection Facilities? b. Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New or Modified Fire Service Facilities? c. Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New or Modified School Facilities? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policy: PFS 11.4 School Impact Fees. Continue to collect new development fees as established by the GUSD, in accordance with State law. The policy is implemented through the standard requirements. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 62 Comments: a. New Police Protection Facilities – Equal or Less Impact. The project will result in an incremental increase for police services. However, these additional impacts are not expected to require new police facilities. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. New or Modified Fire Service Facilities – Equal or Less Impact. The project will result in an incremental increase for fire protection services and may result in the need for additional or modified fire stations. However, these additional impacts are identified in the general plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. New or Modified School Facilities – Equal or Less Impact. The Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) provides K-12 education in the Planning Area. As part of the GUSD’s development impact fee for the construction of school facilities, the District collects Level 1 Fees (as authorized by Government Code Section 65995) to construct new school facilities. The project will result in an incremental increase in the demand for educational services and facilities. However, these additional impacts are identified in the general plan. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirement will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 15. Payment of School Impact Fees Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project proponent shall provide evidence that the applicable school facility impact fees have been paid to the Gilroy Unified School District. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 63 1 6 . R ECREATION : Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Aesthics. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New Park and Recreational Facilities? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Requirement for Alteration or Construction of New Park and Recreational Facilities? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policy: PR 1.14 Recreation Facilities in New Development. Encourage the provision of public and private recreation facilities in residential developments, especially publicly accessible, privately maintained facilities. Consider public accessibility and the establishment of sustainable funding for maintenance costs before accepting public recreation facility dedications. This policy is implemented through the design of the project and the standard requirements. Comments: a. Require the Alteration, Construction of New Park and Recreational Facilities – Equal or Less Impact. The Project includes 29 single family residences and will result in a small increment of demand/need for additional park, recreation, and athletic facilities. The project includes private fenced backyards and a small on-site play area that will meet some of the demand for recreational and athletic amenities. In addition, the project will be required to pay the established in-lieu parkland dedication fee established by the City Council. As a result, no impacts to recreation beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 64 Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements 16. Payment of In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project proponent shall pay the in-lieu parkland dedication fee. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 65 17. T RANSPORTATION AND M OBILITY Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Transportation and Mobility. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled? Less than Significant with additional mitigation included in the Final EIR. This additional mitigation is in addition to the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. Mitigation Measure TRNS-1 added policy M 1.14 Transportation Demand Management, and General Plan Implementation Measures 11 and 12. However, even with this mitigation, the impact remained significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. b. The Project Would Not Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadways, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities? No Impact. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area- wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled? b. The Project Would Not Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadways, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities? c. Increase road hazards due to a design features or incompatible uses? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: ➢ “Memorandum on 9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue Residential VMT Evaluation”, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated March 10, 2021. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policies: 8.B.i Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 66 LU 3.2 Connectivity. Encourage new residential development to incorporate design features that promote walking and connectivity between blocks. This policy is implemented through the design of the. M 1.6 Street Safety and Accessibility. Design streets and transportation facilities that are safe and accessible to people of all abilities, including those with limited mobility. This policy is implemented through the design of the project. M 1.10 Private Streets. Require private streets to function similar to public streets. Private streets shall include sidewalks, street trees, and promote connectivity. This policy is implemented through the design of the project. M 3.2 New Development. Require new development to include a system of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that link all land uses, provide accessibility to parks and schools, and connect to all existing or planned external street and trail facilities in accordance with the Mobility Diagrams. This policy is implemented through the design of the project. M 5.22 Roadway Improvement Right-of-Way Dedication. Require proposed new development to dedicate right-of-way, as shown in Appendix D, necessary for improvements to roadways on which the new development fronts. This policy is implemented through the design of the project. Comments: a. Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled – Equal or Less Impact. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the 2040 General Plan identified impacts to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will exceed the identified State target for both residential and employment. A VMT analysis was prepared for the Project using Valley Transportation Authority’s VMT Evaluation Tool. The results of the analysis indicated that, like the 2040 General Plan, Project VMT would not achieve the 15% vehicle miles traveled reduction target mandated by SB 743. As part of the analysis, four possible transportation demand management measures were identified to help reduce total project VMT. However, even with the implementation of all four strategies, Project VMT still exceeded the reduction target. The four possible strategies are outlined below. • TP01 – School Pool Programs: Organize a program that matches families in carpools for school pick-up and drop-off of all households from the project. The measure would help match parents who transport students to schools without a busing program, including private schools, charter schools, and neighborhood schools where students cannot walk or bike. The school pool program would be open to all families in the development. School pools reduce the total number of vehicle trips traveling to and from schools, thereby reducing VMT. However, the City does not currently have any kind of citywide program that the project proponent or future residents could participate in. As a result, this measure is not feasible. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 67 • TP14 – Transit Service Expansion: Project subsidizes transit service through fees and contributions to local transit provider. This approach improves transit service to the project, resulting in increased use of transit and reduced VMT. However, there are currently no bus lines serving the project site. The closest transit line is a local route, Route 85, which has one-hour headways. The closest stop locations are about half a mile (walking distance) from the site. The second route, Route 68,has 15-minute headways but the closest stop location is a little over a mile from the project site. Given the distances between the site and the closest bus stops, and this measure is not feasible. • TP18 – Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs: Provide a program that targets individual attitudes towards travel and providing tools for individuals to analyze and alter their travel behavior with 100% expected resident participation. These types of programs include mass communication campaigns and travel feedback programs, to encourage the use of shared ride modes, transit, walking, and biking, all of which reduce VMT. However, the City does not currently have any kind of citywide program that the project proponent or future residents could participate in. As a result, this measure is not feasible. Based upon the VMT analysis performed for this Project, the Project will not achieve the required 15% reduction for residential projects. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this increase in VMT indicating that due to the City’s distant location and its relationship to the regional economy buildout of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, and VMT impacts were identified in the certified Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, and the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations documenting that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the VMT exceedance, no additional mitigation beyond the applicable standard requirements and or subsequent CEQA review is required. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to VMT that are more severe than those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan. b. Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System – Equal or Less Impact. The Project complies with all applicable mobility-related plans, programs and policies. The Project will construct additional roadway improvements to Kern Avenue to further implement the requirements of the General Plan, including the payment of the applicable Traffic Impact Fee. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Increased Road Safety Hazards. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the impacts of the General Plan to Road Safety Hazards. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR. No Impact. The Project will construct standard street improvements along its straight frontage with Kern Avenue. These standard improvements will not insert road design elements that would create a road hazard. In addition, the Project will add additional residential land uses in an area largely comprised of other residential and public uses. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. d. Inadequate Emergency Access. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the impacts of the General Plan to emergency access. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 68 No Impact. The Project is located on the valley floor in an area served by a gridded road system and will alter the road system in the area to modify the road network. As a result, the project is not altering the existing situation and no impacts are anticipated. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirement will reduce potential impacts. 17. Payment of Traffic Impact Fee Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project proponent shall pay the adopted Traffic Impact Fee. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any sig nificant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan which included a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 69 18. U TILITIES AND S ERVICE S YSTEMS Summary of FEIR Conclusions: The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan assessed environmental impacts related to Aesthics. The impacts and conclusions in the FEIR are as follows: Would the 2040 General Plan Result In: The Final EIR Concluded a. Increase in Water Demand Will Not Require New or Expanded Water Facilities? No Impact. b. Wastewater Treatment Requirements Would not be Exceeded. Construction of New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities Would be Required? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. c. Sufficient Landfill Capacity to Accommodate the Project’s Solid Waste Disposal Needs? Less than Significant with the Goals, Policies, and Actions contained in the 2040 General Plan. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Discussion of Project Specific Impacts: Would the project involve a new or additional impact beyond the Planning Area-wide impacts identified in FEIR for the 2040 General Plan which would: Result in a New Significant Impact Result in an Additional Project- Specific Impact Have an Equal or Less Impact to the Impacts in FEIR for the General Plan a. Increase in Water Demand Will Not Require New or Expanded Water Facilities? b. Wastewater Treatment Requirements Would not be Exceeded. Construction of New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities Would be Required? c. Sufficient Landfill Capacity to Accommodate the Project’s Solid Waste Disposal Needs? d. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, Project Specific Technical Studies/Analyses: None. Standard Requirements Applicable to the Project: The Project will be required to comply with the following General Plan policies: PFS 4.8 Water Conservation. Encourage water conservation and other programs which result in reduced demand for wastewater treatment capacity. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 70 This policy is implemented through the design of the project and the standard requirements. PFS 10.5 New Development. Continue to require that new development provides all necessary water service, fire hydrants, and roads consistent with Fire Department standards. This policy is implemented through the design of the project. PFS 1.11 Development Impact Fees. Require applicants for new development to pay Development Impact Fees for traffic circulation, water, wastewater, storm water and public facilities to offset the costs of expanding these as detailed by the impact fee nexus study. This policy is implemented through the standard requirements. NCR 1.14 Maintain Pre-Project Stormwater Flows. Encourage project design for smaller projects in the areas of the unconfined Llagas sub-basin to maintain pre-project stormwater flows consistent with City stormwater standards that prohibit offsite discharge up to the 95th percentile storm event for Tier 3 projects, allow treat and release for Tier 2 projects, and allow a more passive, ‘best practices’ design to minimize runoff for Tier 1 projects. This policy is implemented through the standard requirements. Comments: a. Increase in Water Demand Will Not Require New or Expanded Water Facilities – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is included in the water use calculations and system requirements utilized in the Water Master Plans and system requirements in the General Plan. The Project will also connect to existing water supply lines located in Kern Avenue. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. b. Wastewater Treatment Capacity – Equal or Less Impact. The Project is included in the water use calculations utilized in the Sewer Master Plans base future demand and system requirements on the General Plan Land Use Map and related population and service area projections. The Project will also connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Kern Avenue. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. c. Landfill Capacity – Equal or Less Impact. The City of Gilroy contracts with Recology South Valley to provide curbside recycling, garbage, and organic waste collection services. Solid waste from the City is taken to the San Martin Transfer Station where recyclable materials are separated from the solid waste stream. Waste management and recycling requirements are also contained in Article V of Chapter 12 of the Gilroy Municipal Code. As a result, no impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan would occur. d. Storm Drain Facilities. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan did not evaluate the impacts of the General Plan to storm drain facilities. This discussion augments the analysis contained in the FEIR. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will install project specific storm drain improvements and connect to the existing storm drain system in Kern Avenue consistent with the Storm Drain Master Plan. This connection will eliminate the current on-ground 8.B.i Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 71 stormwater drainage pattern that flows east from the site into an existing drainage swale. As a result, any impacts are expected to be less than significant. Project Specific Standard Mitigating Requirements The following standard requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 18. Sewer Development Impact Fee Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project proponent shall pay the adopted Sewer Development Impact Fee. 19. Water Development Impact Fee Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project proponent shall pay the adopted Water Development Impact Fee. 20. Storm Drain Development Impact Fee Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project proponent shall pay the adopted Storm Drain Development Impact Fee. Project Specific Mitigation Measures: None required. Conclusion: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan did not identify any significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, this Project that is consistent with the General Plan could not result in environmental effects beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 72 19. A DDITIONAL C EQA C ONSIDERATIONS /DISCUSSION Conclusion: The discussion of the Cumulative Impacts, Significant and Unavoidable Effects, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, Growth Inducing Impact, and Project Alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Report would not alter the discussion, conclusions, or require an alteration of the Project. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) T HE C OTTAGES AT K ERN F INAL I NITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION 73 E. SOURCES 1. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy 2020 General Plan. 2. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy 2020 General Plan Final EIR. 3. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan. 4. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan Final EIR. 5. City of Gilroy. The Charter of the City of Gilroy, as amended. 6. Site Visit by M-Group. February 4, 2021. 7. OAG Architects. Architecture Plan. October 22, 2020. 8. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Vesting Tentative Tract Map. July 22, 2020. 9. Ripley Landscape, Architecture, Land Planning. Preliminary Landscape Plan. August 2020. 10. FirstCarbon Solutions. Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment, Kern Avenue Residential Project, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California. February 24, 2021. 11. H.T Harvey Ecological Consultants. Kern and St Clar Project, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Application for Private Project Supplemental Attachment. September 3, 2020. 12. Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at Kern Avenue. March 25, 2020. 13. Illingworth and Rodkin. The Cottages at Kern First and Kelton Commercial Construction and Community Risk Assessment. February 10, 2021. 14. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan for The Cottages at Kern. September 2020. 15. Coast Ridge Ecology. Biological Resource Assessment for Kern and St. Clar Project. February 10, 2021. 16. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Memorandum on 9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue Residential VMT Evaluation. March 17, 2021. 17. Illingworth and Rodkin. The Cottages at Kern Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment. February 10, 2021. 18. First Carbon Solutions. Memorandum on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Results. March 25, 2020. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Appendix A Memorandum on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Results 8.B.i Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) UNITED STATES T +1 888 826 5814 T +1 714 508 4100 F +1 714 508 4110 E info@fcs-intl.com Irvine 250 Commerce Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 Bay Area 1350 Treat Boulevard Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Central Valley 7265 N. First Street Suite 101 Fresno, CA 93720 Inland Empire 650 E. Hospitality Lane Suite 125 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Sacramento Valley 2204 Plaza Drive Suite 210 Rocklin, CA 95765 Utah 2901 Bluegrass Boulevard Suite 200-62 Lehi, UT 84043 Connecticut 2 Corporate Drive Suite 450 Shelton, CT 06484 New York 10 Monument Street Deposit, NY 13754 56 Broome Corporate Parkway Conklin, NY 13748 CANADA UNITED KINGDOM PORTUGAL FRANCE KENYA AUSTRALIA PHILIPPINES CHINA MALAYSIA SINGAPORE Letter Report North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com March 25, 2020 Chris Zaballos Director of Entitlements D.R. Horton 6683 Owens Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Subject: 9130 Kern Avenue – Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Results Dear Chris: Per your request, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) has prepared a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA) for the property at 9130 Kern Avenue in Gilroy, California. To preface this letter report, the project site is mapped as Grazing Land and Other Land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. It is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance and, therefore, does not fall under the Important Farmland umbrella. That said, FCS prepared a LESA Model and the scoring summary is provided on the following page. FCS concludes that the property at 9130 Kern Avenue does not contain Important Farmland and the conversion of the site to single-family residential use would not be considered a significant impact under LESA criteria. Additionally, the project site is not encumbered with a Williamson Act contract. Thus, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project would not have any significant agricultural resources impacts. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact us at jbrandman@fcs-intl.com and ggruber@fcs-intl.com. Sincerely, Jason Brandman, Vice President Grant Gruber, Project Manager FirstCarbon Solutions FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Enc: Exhibit 1: Important Farmland Map Exhibit 2: Soils Map Exhibit 3: Zone of Influence Map LESA Model Workbook 8.B.i Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 2 Letter Report North America | Europe | Africa | Australia | Asia www.firstcarbonsolutions.com LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL SCORING SUMMARY Category Sub-Category Points Factor Weighting Weighted Factor Rating Remarks Land Evaluation Land Capability Classification 0 0.25 0 Project site contains Clear Lake Clay, 0-2 percent slopes (Class 3w), San Ysidro Loam, 0-2 percent slopes (Class 3s), and Pleasanton Gravelly Loam, 0-2 percent slopes (Class 2s). Because project site is less than 10 acres, the LESA Model assigns 0 points Storie Index 72.9 0.25 18.2 Clear Lake Clay has Storie Index of 24; San Ysidro Loam has a Storie Index of 88; Pleasanton Gravelly Loam has a Storie Index of 72. Total Storie Index score represents sum of proportions of each soil Subtotal – 0.5 18.2 – Site Assessment Project Site 0 0.15 0 Project site is 3.57 acres. The LESA Model awards 0 points for sites smaller than 10 acres Water Resources Availability 75 0.15 11.3 Project site only has access to groundwater. Physical restrictions would apply during both non-drought and drought years. Surrounding Agricultural Lands 0 0.15 0 Less than 40 percent of surrounding land uses consist of agricultural land use activities Protected Resources Lands 0 0.05 0 Less than 40 percent of surrounding land uses consist of protected agricultural land uses (e.g., Williamson Act preserve) Subtotal – 0.5 11.3 – Total – 1.0 29.5 Determination: Not Significant because score is less than 40 points 8.B.i Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 27750079 • 03/2020 | 1_farmland.mxd Exhibit 1Important Farmland Map Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. CA Department of Conservation Santa Clara County FMMP, 2016. D.R. HORTON • KERN AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTLAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Tatum Ave Kern AveMantelli Dr Ramona WayAvezan WayD X Padova DrI 300 0 300150 Feet Legend Project Site Important Farmland Categories D - Urban and Built-up Land 0.03 acre X - Other Land 3.54 acre 8.B.i Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 27750079 • 03/2020 | 2_soils.mxd Exhibit 2Soils Map Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. USDA Soils DataMart, Santa Clara Eastern Area. D.R. HORTON • KERN AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTLAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Tatum Ave Kern AveMantelli Dr Ramona WayAvezan WayPadova DrSdA Cg PpA I 300 0 300150 Feet Legend Project Site Soil Classification Cg - Clear Lake clay 0.72 acre PpA - Pleasanton gravelly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.21 acre SdA - San Ysidro loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.64 acres 8.B.i Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 27750079 • 03/2020 | 3_ZOI.mxd Exhibit 3Zone of Influence Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. CA Department of Conservation Santa Clara County FMMP, 2016. D.R. HORTON • KERN AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTLAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Tatum Ave Kern AveWren AveMantelli Dr Ramona WayLavender StF arrell A veLawrence DrAvezan WayPadova DrSanta Teresa BlvdVickery Ave Ronan Ave D X G D X G D D I 700 0 700350 Feet Legend Project Site Zone of Influence Important Farmland Categories D - Urban and Built-up Land 123.93 acres G - Grazing Land 67.07 acres X - Other Land 35.03 acres 8.B.i Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Appendix B Community Health Impact Assessment 8.B.i Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT Gilroy, California February 10, 2021 Prepared for: David Hogan, AICP Principal Planner M-Group 307 Orchard City Drive, Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 Prepared by: Casey Divine & James A. Reyff 429 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 (707) 794-0400 I&R Project#: 21-010 8.B.i Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to address the potential community risk impacts associated with the construction of the proposed residential project located at 9130 and 9160 Kern Avenue in Gilroy, California. The air quality impacts from this project would be associated with construction of the new buildings. Air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the project were predicted using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential project construction health risk impacts and the impact of existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources affecting the nearby sensitive receptors were evaluated. The analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1 Project Description The approximately 3.74-acre project site is currently vacant. The project proposes to construct 29 single-family homes with a corresponding private street and common open space. Setting The project is located in Santa Clara County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Air Pollutants of Concern High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 2 pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide fuel standards. California also has the ability to set motor vehicle emission standards and standards for fuel used in California, as long as they are the same or more stringent than the federal standards. In the past decade the EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and non-road heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of NOX and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified DPM as a probable carcinogen. Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on- road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce particulate matter and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.2 In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off-highway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S. 2 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 3 All of the above federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner. State Regulations To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.3 In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, a significant component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been approved and adopted, including the federal on-road and non-road diesel engine emission standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California. CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls or replaced to meet 2010 or later engine standards that have much lower DPM and PM2.5 emissions. This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023. While new trucks and buses will meet strict federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road or is retrofitted to meet similar standards. With this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads sooner. CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in- use (existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate matter and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet- averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600-square mile area, commonly referred to as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The District’s boundary encompasses the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern Solano County, and southern Sonoma County. 3 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 4 BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized. The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines4 were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA re quirements including thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. Attachment 1 includes detailed community risk modeling methodology. City of Gilroy General Plan The City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan5 was adopted by the City on November 2, 2020. The pertinent goals and policies applicable to the proposed project are listed below. Goal NCR 3: Contribute to improvements in regional air quality and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. NCR 3.3: Shade Tree Program. Increase community-wide use of shade trees to decrease energy use associated with building cooling. NCR 3.4: Solar Development. Encourage voluntary community-wide solar photovoltaic development through regulatory barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns. NCR 3.15: Reduce Construction Emissions. Require the use of low emissions construction equipment for public and private projects, consistent with the air district 2017 Clean Air Plan. Where construction-related emissions would exceed the applicable Thresholds of Significance, the City will consider, on a case-by-case basis, implementing Additional Construction Mitigation Measures (Table 8-3 in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines). NCR 3.16: Implement Dust-Control Measures. Require the implementation of the air district’s dust control measures during construction of individual projects, consistent with the air district 2017 Clean Air Plan. NCR 3.17: Sensitive Receptors within 500 feet of U.S. Highway 101. Require modeling of toxic air contaminants, and include mitigation as may be appropriate, 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 5 City of Gilroy, 2040 General Plan, November 2, 2020. Web: https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/11309/Gilroy-2040-General-Plan-39-MB?bidId= 8.B.i Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 5 prior to approval of new residential development within 500 feet of U.S. Highway 101, to ensure significant health risks are mitigated. NCR 3.18: Sensitive Receptors within 500 feet of Existing Point Sources or Existing Heavy Industrial Designated Areas. Require modeling of toxic air contaminants, and include mitigation as may be appropriate, prior to approval of new residential development within the Downtown Specific Plan within 500 feet of existing point sources with screening factors in excess of thresholds, or within 500 feet of areas designated Heavy Industrial, to ensure significant health risks are mitigated. Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are in the single-family residences adjacent to the north and east of the project site. There are additional nearby residences surrounding the project site. This project would also introduce new sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) to the area. Significance Thresholds In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld. BAAQMD updated the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 to include the latest significance thresholds, which were used in this analysis and are summarized in Table 1. Community risks are considered significant if they exceed these levels. Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Community Risk Significance Thresholds Health Risks and Hazards Single Sources Within ¼- Mile Zone of Influence Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources within ¼-Mile zone of influence) Excess Cancer Risk 10.0 per one million 100 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 10.0 Incremental annual PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3 Note: PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 6 Construction Community Risk Impacts and Mitigation Measures Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by generating emissions of TACs and air pollutants and by introducing a new sensitive receptor in proximity to an existing source of TACs. Temporary project construction activity would generate emissions of DPM from equipment and trucks and also generate dust on a temporary basis that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. A construction community health risk assessment was prepared to address project construction impacts on the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors. Additionally, the project could introduce new residents that are sensitive receptors, who would be exposed to existing sources of TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the impact of the existing sources of TAC upon the existing sensitive receptors and new incoming sensitive receptors was assessed. Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. These exhaust emissions pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.6 This assessment included dispersion modeling to predict the offsite and onsite concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer health effects could be evaluated. The methodology for computing community risks impacts is contained in Attachment 1. Construction Period Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate emissions from on-site construction activity, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions. The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod. The CARB EMission FACtors 2017 (EMFAC2017) model was used to predict emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks.7 The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Attachment 2 and EMFAC2017 vehicle emissions modeling outputs are included in Attachment 3. CalEEMod Modeling Land Use Inputs The proposed townhome land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2. 6 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 7 See CARB’s EMFAC2017 Web Database at https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/ 8.B.i Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 7 Table 1. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet (sf) Acreage Single Family Housing 29 Dwelling Unit 52,200 2.80 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.81 Acre 25,254 0.81 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.13 Acre 5,663 0.13 Construction Inputs CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off- site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build-out scenario for both phases, including equipment list and schedule, were based on information provided by the project applicant. The construction equipment worksheets provided by the applicant included the schedule for each phase. Within each phase, the quantity of equipment to be used along with the average hours per day and total number of workdays was set to the default values in CalEEMod. Where CalEEMod doesn’t provide default values, conservatively high values were assumed for equipment required and hours operated. Since different equipment would have different estimates of the working days per phase, the hours per day for each phase was computed by dividing the total number of hours that the equipment would be used by the total number of days in that phase. The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be January 2022, project construction would be six-days a week, and the project would be built out over a period of approximately 19 months, or 494 construction workdays. The earliest year of full operation was assumed to be 2024. Construction Truck Traffic Emissions The latest version of the CalEEMod model is based on the older version of the CARB EMFAC2014 motor vehicle emission factor model. This model has been superseded by the EMFAC2017 model; however, CalEEMod has not been updated to include EMFAC2017. Construction would produce traffic in the form of worker trips and truck traffic. The traffic-related emissions are based on worker and vendor trip estimates produced by CalEEMod and haul trips that were computed based on the estimate of demolition material to be exported, soil material imported and/or exported to the site, and the estimate of cement and asphalt truck trips. CalEEMod provides daily estimates of worker and vendor trips for each applicable phase. The total trips for those were computed by multiplying the daily trip rate by the number of days in that phase. Haul trips for grading were estimated from the provided grading volumes. The number of concrete and asphalt total round haul trips were provided for the project and converted to total one-way trips, assuming two trips per delivery. The construction traffic information was combined with EMFAC2017 motor vehicle emissions factors. EMFAC2017 provides aggregate emission rates in grams per mile for each vehicle type. The vehicle mix for this study was based on CalEEMod default assumptions, where worker trips are assumed to be comprised of light-duty autos (EMFAC category LDA) and light duty trucks (EMFAC category LDT1and LDT2). Vendor trips are comprised of delivery and large trucks 8.B.i Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8 (EMFAC category MHDT and HHDT) and haul trips, including cement trucks, are comprised of large trucks (EMFAC category HHDT). Travel distances are based on CalEEMod default lengths, which are 10.8 miles for worker travel, 7.3 miles for vendor trips and 20 miles for hauling (demolition material export and soil import/export). Since CalEEMod does not address cement trucks, these were treated as vendor travel distances. Each trip was assumed to include an idle time of 5 minutes. Emissions associated with vehicle starts were also included. On road emissions in Santa Clara County for 2022 and 2023 were used in these calculations. Table 3 provides the traffic inputs that were combined with the EMFAC2017 emission database to compute vehicle emissions. Table 3. Construction Traffic Data Used for EMFAC2017 Model Runs CalEEMod Run/Land Uses and Construction Phase Trips by Trip Type Notes Total Worker1 Total Vendor1 Total Haul2 Vehicle mix1 71.7% LDA 6.4% LDT1 21.9% LDT2 37.9% MHDT 62.1% HHDT 100% HHDT Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 20.0 (Demo/Soil) 7.3 (Cement/Asphalt) CalEEMod default distance with 5-min truck idle time. Site Preparation 9 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. Grading 624 - 319 2,553-cy soil export. CalEEMod default worker trips. Building Construction 10,248 3,660 290 145 cement truck round trips. CalEEMod default worker and vendor trips. Trenching 1,098 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. Architectural Coating 2,196 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. Paving 16 - 34 17 asphalt truck round trips. CalEEMod default worker trips. Notes: 1 Based on 2022-2023 EMFAC2017 light-duty vehicle fleet mix for Santa Clara County. 2 Includes grading trips estimated by CalEEMod based on amount of material to be removed. Summary of Computed Construction Period Emissions The CalEEMod model and EMFAC2017 emissions provided total annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on- road vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages as 0.0656 tons (131 pounds). The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on- road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 0.0155 tons (31 pounds) for the overall construction period. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 9 Community Health Risk from Project Construction Dispersion Modeling The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects.8 Construction Sources To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, an area source emission release height of 20 feet (6 meters) was used for the area sources.9 The release height incorporates both the physical release height from the construction equipment (i.e., the height of the exhaust pipe) and plume rise after it leaves the exhaust pipe. Plume rise is due to both the high temperature of the exhaust and the high velocity of the exhaust gas. It should be noted that when modeling an area source, plume rise is not calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model as it would do for a point source (exhaust stack). Therefore, the release height from an area source used to represent emissions from sources with plume rise, such as construction equipment, should be based on the height the exhaust plume is expected to achieve, not just the height of the top of the exhaust pipe. For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters) was used for the area source. Fugitive dust emissions at construction sites come from a variety of sources, including truck and equipment travel, grading activities, truck loading (with loaders) and unloading (rear or bottom dumping), loaders and excavators moving and transferring soil and other materials, etc. All of these activities result in fugitive dust emissions at various heights at the point(s) of generation. Once generated, the dust plume will tend to rise as it moves downwind across the site and exit the site at a higher elevation than when it was generated. For all these reasons, a 7-foot release height was used as the average release height across the construction site. Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. AERMOD Inputs and Meteorological Data The modeling used a five-year data set (2013 – 2017) of hourly meteorological data from the San Martin Airport prepared for use with the AERMOD model by BAAQMD. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring daily between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., when the majority of construction activity would occur according to the applicant. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2022-2023 period were calculated using the model. DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors. Receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. 9 California Air Resource Board, 2007. Proposed Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles, Appendix D: Health Risk Methodology. April. Web: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm 8.B.i Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 10 meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first floor of nearby single-family residences.10 Summary of Construction Community Risk Impacts The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by BAAQMD (see Attachment 1). Non-cancer health hazards and maximum PM2.5 concentrations were also calculated and identified. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during the entire construction period. The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration was calculated based on combined exhaust and fugitive concentrations. The maximum computed HI value was based on the ratio of the maximum DPM concentration modeled and the chronic inhalation refence exposure level of 5 µg/m3. The maximum-modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors (as shown in Figure 1) to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEI). Results of this assessment indicated that the construction residential MEI was located at single-family home north of the project site. Table 4 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities affecting the construction MEI. Attachment 4 to this report includes the emission calculations used for the construction area source modeling and the cancer risk calculations. Table 4. Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-site MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Impact Project Construction Unmitigated Mitigated* 28.7 (infant) 2.1 (infant) 0.16 0.04 0.02 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated* Yes No No No No No * Construction equipment with Tier 4 interim engines and Best Management Practices as Mitigation Measures. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 8.B.i Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 11 Figure 1. Project Construction Site, Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact Location Cumulative Community Risks of all TAC Sources at the Offsite Project MEI Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the project influence area based on provided information indicates that traffic on Mantelli Drive would exceed an average daily traffic (ADT) of 10,000 vehicles. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source geographic information systems (GIS) map tool11 identified no stationary sources with the potential to affect the project site and MEI. Figure 2 shows the location of sources affecting the project site and MEI. Community risk impacts from these sources upon the MEI reported in Table 5. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment 5. 11 BAAQMD, Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards, Web: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 8.B.i Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 12 Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources Local Roadways – Mantelli Drive A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on Mantelli Drive was conducted. The refined analysis involved predicting emissions for the traffic volume and mix of vehicle types on both roadways near the project site and using an atmospheric dispersion model to predict exposure to TACs. The associated cancer risks are then computed based on the modeled exposures. Attachment 1 includes a description of how community risk impacts, including cancer risk are computed. Emission Rates This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for traffic on both roadways using the Caltrans version of the EMFAC2017 emissions model, known as CT- EMFAC2017. CT-EMFAC2017 provides emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds (e.g., TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for PM2.5. All PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just the PM2.5 fraction from diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types (i.e., gasoline and 8.B.i Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 13 diesel powered) produce PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear and from re-entrained roadway dust were included in these emissions. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the CT-EMFAC2017 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region (i.e., Santa Clara County), type of road (i.e., major/collector), truck percentage for non-state highways in Santa Clara County (3.51 percent),12 traffic mix assigned by CT-EMFAC2017 for the county, year of analysis (2022 – construction start year), and season (annual). The average daily traffic (ADT) for Mantelli Drive was based on AM and PM peak-hour existing traffic volumes for the nearby roadways provided by the project’s traffic consultant.13 Assuming a 1 percent per year increase, the predicted ADT on Mantelli Drive would be 10,800 vehicles. Average hourly traffic distributions for Santa Clara County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,14 which were then applied to the ADT volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for the roadway. An average travel speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) on Mantelli Drive was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit signs on the roadway. In order to estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the 30-year exposure period used for calculating the increased cancer risks for sensitive receptors at the MEI and project site, the CT- EMFAC2017 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2022 (project construction year). Year 2022 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the time period that cancer risks are evaluated. Dispersion Modeling Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the EPA AERMOD air quality dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.15 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from traffic on Mantelli Drive within 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated. Vehicle traffic on the roadway was modeled using a series of adjacent volume sources along a line (line volume sources); with line segments used for the eastbound and westbound travel directions on Mantelli Drive. The same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction dispersion modeling were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry and elevations, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations. Annual TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2022 from traffic on Mantelli Drive were calculated using the model. Concentrations were calculated at the project MEI with receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) to represent the breathing heights of residents in the single-family home. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 13 Email correspondence with Gicela Del Rio, T.E., Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., January 22, 2021, Mantelli Inter Vols.xlsx. 14 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’s EMFAC model, was used for this since the current web-based version of EMFAC2014 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume information. 15 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012 8.B.i Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 14 Figure 2 shows the roadway segments modeled and residential receptor locations used in the modeling. Table 5 lists the risks and hazards from the roadway. The emission rates and roadway calculations used in the analysis are shown in Attachment 5. Summary of Cumulative Health Risk Impact at Construction MEI Table 5 reports both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptors most affected by construction (i.e., the MEI). The project would have an exceedance with respect to community risk caused by project construction activities, since the maximum unmitigated cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD single-source thresholds. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, the project’s cancer risks would be lowered to a level below the single-source thresholds. The cancer risk, PM2.5 concentration, and HI, unmitigated and mitigated, does not exceed its cumulative threshold. Table 5. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Impacts Project Construction Unmitigated Mitigated 28.7 (infant) 2.1 (infant) 0.16 0.04 0.02 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated Yes No No No No No Cumulative Sources Mantelli Drive, ADT 10,800 0.1 0.01 <0.01 Combined Sources Unmitigated Mitigated 28.8 (infant) 2.2 (infant) 0.17 0.05 <0.03 <0.02 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated No No No No No No Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less-than-significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions. Recommended Measure AQ-1 would implement BAAQMD- recommended best management practices. Recommended Measure AQ-1: Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction. During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. Additional measures are identified 8.B.i Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 15 to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. 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. Effectiveness of Recommended Measure AQ-1 The measures above are consistent with BAAQMD-recommended basic control measures for reducing fugitive particulate matter that are contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Use construction equipment that has low diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions. A feasible plan to reduce emissions such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below significance levels is as follows: 8.B.i Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 16 1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise, a. Equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 66 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment could be used; alternatively (or in combination), b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 CalEEMod was used to compute emissions associated with this mitigation measure assuming that all equipment met U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim engines standards and BAAQMD best management practices for construction were included. With these implemented, the project’s construction cancer risk impact, assuming infant exposure, would be reduced to 2.1 per million. Other means that reduce cancer risk by 66 percent would reduce the cancer risk to 9.8 chances per million. As a result, the project’s construction cancer risk would be reduced below the BAAQMD single- source threshold. On-Site Community Health Risk Impacts – New Project Residents In addition to evaluating health impact from project construction, a health risk assessment was completed to assess the impact existing TAC sources would have on the new proposed sensitive receptors (residents) that that project would introduce. The same TAC sources identified above were used in this health risk assessment.16 Local Roadways – Mantelli Drive The roadway analysis for the project residents was conducted in the same manner as described above for the off-site MEI. The project set of receptors were placed throughout the project area and were spaced every 66 feet (20 meters). Roadway impacts were modeled at receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) representing sensitive receptors on the first floor on the future single-family homes. The portions of Mantelli Drive included in the modeling are shown in Figure 3 along with the project site and receptor locations where impacts were modeled. Maximum increased cancer risks were calculated for the residents at the project site using the maximum modeled TAC concentrations. A 30-year exposure period was used in calculating cancer risks assuming the residents would include third trimester pregnancy and infants/children and were 16 We note that to the extent this analysis considers existing air quality issues in relation to the impact on future residents of the Project, it does so for informational purposes only pursuant to the judicial decisions in CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 and Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473, which confirm that the impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” such impacts. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 17 assumed to be in the new housing area for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. The highest impacts from Mantelli Drive occurred at the first-floor receptor in a home along the southern boundary of the project site closest to the roadway. Cancer risks associated with Mantelli Drive are greatest closest to Mantelli Drive and decrease with distance from the road. The roadway community risk impacts at the project site are shown in Table 6. Details of the emission calculations, dispersion modeling, and cancer risk calculations are contained in Attachment 5. Figure 3. Project Site, On-Site Residential Receptors, Roadway Segments Evaluated, and Locations of Maximum Roadway TAC Impacts Combined Community Health Risk at Project Site Community risk impacts from the existing TAC sources upon the project site are reported in Table 6. The risks from the singular TAC sources are compared against the BAAQMD single-source threshold. The risks from all the sources are then combined and compared against the BAAQMD cumulative-source threshold. As shown, none of the sources exceed the single-source or cumulative-source thresholds. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 18 Table 6. Cumulative Community Risk Impacts Upon the On-site Sensitive Receptors Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Mantelli Drive, ADT 10,800 0.2 0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0 Exceed Threshold?No No No Cumulative Total 0.2 0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No Supporting Documentation Attachment 1 is the methodology used to compute community risk impacts, including the methods to compute lifetime cancer risk from exposure to project emissions. Attachment 2 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction emissions. Also included are any modeling assumptions. Attachment 3 includes the EMFAC2017 emissions modeling. The input files for these calculations are voluminous and are available upon request in digital format. Attachment 4 is the construction health risk assessment. This includes the summary of the dispersion modeling and the cancer risk calculations for construction. AERMOD dispersion modeling files for this assessment, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format Attachment 5 includes the cumulative community risk calculations, modeling results, and health risk calculations from sources affecting the construction MEI and project site receptors. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.17 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.18 This HRA used the 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.19 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation. Cancer Risk Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs is calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency and duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location. The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day) or liters per kilogram of body weight per 8-hour period for the case of worker or school child exposures. As recommended by the BAAQMD for residential exposures, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. For children at schools and daycare facilities, BAAQMD recommends using the 95th percentile 8-hour breathing rates. Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 17 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. February. 18 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 19 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment ( HRA) Guidelines. December 2016. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 30 years for sources with long-term emissions (e.g., roadways). For workers, assumed to be adults, a 25-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD. For school children a 9-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD. Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be at their home 24 hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home (FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time, based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age-specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. Use of the FAH factors is allowed by the BAAQMD if there are no schools in the project vicinity have a cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0). Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas: Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR* x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) 8HrBR = 8-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-8 hours) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows: Exposure Type Infant Child Adult Parameter Age Range 3rd Trimester 0<2 2 < 16 16 - 30 DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 80th Percentile Rate 273 758 572 261 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 95th Percentile Rate 361 1,090 745 335 8-hour Breathing Rate (L/kg-8 hours) 95th Percentile Rate - 1,200 520 240 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70 Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14* Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350* Age Sensitivity Factor 10103 1 Fraction of Time at Home (FAH) 0.85-1.0 0.85-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.73* * An 8-hour breathing rate (8HrBR) is used for worker and school child exposures. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Non-Cancer Hazards Non-cancer health risk is usually determined by comparing the predicted level of exposure to a chemical to the level of exposure that is not expected to cause any adverse effects (reference exposure level), even to the most susceptible people. Potential non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a significant non-cancer health impact from a project would occur. Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of concern with non-cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter (DPM). For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). Annual PM2.5 Concentrations While not a TAC, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential non-cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The thresholds of significance for PM2.5 (project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration. When considering PM2.5 impacts, the contribution from all sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For projects with potential impacts from nearby local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM2.5 generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust on the roads. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs 8.B.i Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Air Quality/Noise Construction Information Data Request Project Name: The Cotages at Kern (Gilroy, CA) See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size 29 Dwelling Units 3.74 AC total project acres disturbed 2.8 AC s.f. residential Pile Driving? Y/N? 0 s.f. retail 0 s.f. office/commercial Project include OPERATIONAL GENERATOR OR FIRE PUMP on-site? Y/N? ____ 0.13 AC & 0.81 AC s.f. other, specify: common open space & streets IF YES (if BOTH separate values) --> 0 s.f. parking garage N/A spaces Kilowatts/Horsepower: __________ 0 s.f. parking lot N/A spaces Fuel Type: _____________ Construction Hours (Mon-Sat) 7 am to 7 pm Location in project (Plans Desired if Available): DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day Total Work Days Avg. Hours per day HP Annual Hours Comments Demolition Start Date: 1/3/2022 Total phase: 0 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date: 1/3/2022 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0 #DIV/0! 0 Demolition Volume Excavators 158 0.38 0 #DIV/0! 0 Square footage of buildings to be demolished Rubber-Tired Dozers 247 0.4 0 #DIV/0! 0 (or total tons to be hauled) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 #DIV/0! 0 _0_ square feet or Other Equipment?_0_ Hauling volume (tons) Any pavement demolished and hauled? _0_ tons Site Preparation Start Date: 1/4/2022 Total phase: 3 End Date: 1/6/2022 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 3 8 1840 0 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 0 0 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 0 Other Equipment? Grading / Excavation Start Date: 1/7/2022 Total phase: 78 End Date: 4/7/2022 Soil Hauling Volume 1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 9 0.9 4323 Export volume = (2553) cubic yards? 0 Graders 187 0.41 0 0 Import volume = (0) cubic yards? 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 9 0.9 7114 0 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0 0 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 9 0.9 2584 Other Equipment? Trenching/Foundation Start Date: 4/1/2022 Total phase: 366 End Date: 6/1/2023 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 8 6 0.1 1723 0 Excavators 158 0.38 0 0 0 Other Equipment? Building - Exterior Start Date: 4/1/2022 Total phase: 366 Cement Trucks? _?_ Total Round-Trips (145) End Date: 6/1/2023 2 Cranes 231 0.29 1 12 0.03 1608 Electric? (Yes and No) ___ Otherwise assumed diesel 1 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 253 5.5 36027 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (NO) ___ Otherwise Assumed diesel 1 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 366 8 182004 Or temporary line power? (NO) ___ 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 12 0.3 3445 0 Welders 46 0.45 0 0 Other Equipment? Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date: 6/1/2022 Total phase: 366 End Date: 8/1/2023 2 Air Compressors 78 0.48 8 253 5.5 151557 0 Aerial Lift 62 0.31 0 0 Other Equipment? Paving Start Date: 8/1/2023 Total phase: 2 End Date: 8/2/2023 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 8 2 8 81 0 Pavers 130 0.42 0 0 1 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 8 2 8 760 1 Rollers 80 0.38 8 2 8 486 0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 0 Other Equipment? Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab. Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Complete one sheet for each project component It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate Modify horsepower or load factor, as appropriate Complete ALL Portions in Yellow Asphalt? ___ cubic yards or (17) round trips? 8.B.i Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2Page 1 of 1 Date: 2/4/2021 12:36 PMKern Cottages, Gilroy - Santa Clara County, AnnualKern Cottages, Gilroy - ConstructionSanta Clara County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationSingle Family Housing 29.00 Dwelling Unit 2.80 52,200.00 83Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.81 Acre 0.81 35,283.60 0Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.13 Acre 0.13 5,662.80 01.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)58Climate Zone4Operational Year2024Utility CompanyPacific Gas & Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)210CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.029N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)0.0061.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - PG&E 2017 rate - 210Land Use - Provided plans & construction land usesConstruction Phase - Provided construction scheduleOff-road Equipment - Provided construction equip & hoursOff-road Equipment - Provided construction equip & hoursOff-road Equipment - Provided construction equip & hoursOff-road Equipment - Provided construction equip & hours8.B.iPacket Pg. 235Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Off-road Equipment - Provided construction equip & hoursOff-road Equipment - Provided construction equip & hoursGrading - grading = 2,553cy exportTrips and VMT - 0 Trips EMFAC2017, building const = 145 round cement ruck trips, paving = 17 round asphalt truck tripsConstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BMPs, Tier 4 interim mitigationTable Name Column Name Default Value New ValuetblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim8.B.iPacket Pg. 236Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 366.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 366.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 78.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 2.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 3.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/23/2023 8/1/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/4/2023 6/1/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/16/2022 4/7/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/30/2023 8/2/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/4/2022 1/6/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/31/2023 6/1/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/17/2022 4/1/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/5/2022 1/7/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/5/2023 8/1/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2022 1/4/2022tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 2,553.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.42 2.80tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.41tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType GraderstblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/BackhoestblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.008.B.iPacket Pg. 237Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 5.50tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.10tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.50tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.90tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.90tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.30tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.90tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 210tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 319.00 0.008.B.iPacket Pg. 238Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 10.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 28.00 0.008.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 6.00 0.00NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumberFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO22.0 Emissions Summary2.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated ConstructionROGNBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 Total2022 0.2797 0.7525 0.8944 1.5200e-0030.0274 0.0407 0.0681 0.0146 0.0399 0.0546 0.0000 131.1109 131.1109 0.0129 0.0000 131.43292023 0.2459 0.4516 0.6068 1.0200e-0030.0000 0.0235 0.0235 0.0000 0.0232 0.0232 0.0000 87.6827 87.6827 6.8500e-0030.0000 87.8540Maximum 0.2797 0.7525 0.8944 1.5200e-0030.0129 0.0000 131.43290.0274 0.0407 0.0681 0.0146 0.0399 0.0546SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 131.1109 131.1109PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52022 0.2173 0.5510 0.9574 1.5200e-0030.0123 2.10E-03 0.0144 6.58E-03 2.1000e-0038.6900e-0030.0000 131.1108 131.1108 0.0129 0.0000 131.43278.B.iPacket Pg. 239Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 2023 0.2070 0.3692 0.6390 1.0200e-0030.0000 1.39E-03 1.3900e-0030.0000 1.3900e-0031.3900e-0030.0000 87.6826 87.6826 6.8500e-0030.0000 87.8539Maximum 0.2173 0.5510 0.9574 1.5200e-0030.0123 2.1000e-0030.0144 6.5800e-0032.1000e-0038.6900e-0030.0000 131.1108 131.1108 0.0129 0.0000 131.4327ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction19.27 23.58 -6.34 0.000.0055.01 94.56 82.74 55.02 94.47 87.040.0667 0.03050.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.3659 0.2824Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)1 1-3-2022 4-2-20220.3369 0.27622 4-3-2022 7-2-20220.2384 0.17723 7-3-2022 10-2-20220.0660 0.05624 10-3-2022 1-2-20230.3654 0.28245 1-3-2023 4-2-20230.28242.2 Overall Operational6 4-3-2023 7-2-20230.2883 0.23867 7-3-2023 9-30-2023Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalHighest0.3659NBio- CO2Total CO2Unmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2Area 0.4215 6.2300e-0030.4638 5.2000e-0040.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 3.6862 1.2568 4.9431 7.3000e-0032.1000e-0045.1884Energy 4.5400e-0030.0388 0.0165 2.5000e-0043.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0030.0000 67.3289 67.3289 3.9500e-0031.4600e-00367.8636Mobile 0.0547 0.2111 0.6407 2.3800e-0030.2353 1.8600e-0030.2371 0.0630 1.7300e-0030.0647 0.0000 218.3790 218.3790 6.7800e-0030.0000 218.5485Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0763 0.0000 7.0763 0.4182 0.0000 17.5312Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5994 1.3710 1.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0033.95938.B.iPacket Pg. 240Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Total 0.4808 0.2561 1.1210 3.1500e-0030.4980 3.1600e-003313.09090.2353 0.0420 0.2773 0.0630 0.0419 0.1049SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM1011.3619 288.3357 299.6976PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated OperationalROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Area 0.4215 6.2300e-0030.4638 5.2000e-0040.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 3.6862 1.2568 4.9431 7.3000e-0032.1000e-0045.1884Energy 4.5400e-0030.0388 0.0165 2.5000e-0043.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0030.0000 67.3289 67.3289 3.9500e-0031.4600e-00367.8636Mobile 0.0547 0.2111 0.6407 2.3800e-0030.2353 1.8600e-0030.2371 0.0630 1.7300e-0030.0647 0.0000 218.3790 218.3790 6.7800e-0030.0000 218.5485Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0763 0.0000 7.0763 0.4182 0.0000 17.5312Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5994 1.3710 1.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0033.9593Total 0.4808 0.2561 1.1210 3.1500e-0030.2353 0.0420 0.2773 0.0630 0.0419 0.1049 11.3619 288.3357 299.6976 0.4980 3.1600e-003313.0909ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/4/2022 1/6/2022 6 32 Grading Grading 1/7/2022 4/7/2022 6 783 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2022 6/1/2023 6 3664 Trenching Trenching 4/1/2022 6/1/2023 6 3668.B.iPacket Pg. 241Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/1/2022 8/1/2023 6 3666 Paving Paving 8/1/2023 8/2/2023 6 2Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.5Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 0.94Residential Indoor: 105,705; Residential Outdoor: 35,235; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: OffRoad EquipmentPhase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load FactorArchitectural Coating Air Compressors 2 5.50 78 0.48Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.10 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 2 0.10 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 1 5.50 89 0.20Grading Excavators 1 0.90 158 0.38Paving Pavers 0 0.00 130 0.42Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.90 247 0.40Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.30 97 0.37Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.90 97 0.37Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37Grading Graders 0 0.00 187 0.41Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 0.00 247 0.40Building Construction Welders 0 0.00 46 0.458.B.iPacket Pg. 242Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassTrenching 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTGrading 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionUse Cleaner Engines for Construction EquipmentWater Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads3.2 Site Preparation - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrFugitive Dust 8.0000e-0040.0000 8.0000e-0049.0000e-0050.0000 9.0000e-0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 6.2000e-0047.8600e-0032.5700e-0031.0000e-0052.5000e-0042.5000e-0042.3000e-0042.3000e-0040.0000 0.8699 0.8699 2.8000e-0040.0000 0.8769Total 6.2000e-0047.8600e-0032.5700e-0031.0000e-0058.0000e-0042.5000e-0041.0500e-0039.0000e-0052.3000e-0043.2000e-0040.0000 0.8699 0.8699 2.8000e-0040.0000 0.8769Unmitigated Construction Off-Site8.B.iPacket Pg. 243Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrHauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 3.6000e-0040.0000 3.6000e-0044.0000e-0050.0000 4.0000e-0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.6000e-0042.6100e-0035.2600e-0031.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0052.0000e-0050.0000 0.8699 0.8699 2.8000e-0040.0000 0.8769Total 1.6000e-0042.6100e-0035.2600e-0031.0000e-0052.8000e-0040.0000 0.87693.6000e-0042.0000e-0053.8000e-0044.0000e-0052.0000e-0056.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.8699 0.8699PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.58.B.iPacket Pg. 244Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.3 Grading - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 0.0266 0.0000 0.0266 0.0146 0.0000 0.0146 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 5.2800e-0030.0537 0.0398 7.0000e-0052.6000e-0032.6000e-0032.4000e-0032.4000e-0030.0000 6.4810 6.4810 2.1000e-0030.0000 6.5334Total 5.2800e-0030.0537 0.0398 7.0000e-0052.1000e-0030.0000 6.53340.0266 2.6000e-0030.0292 0.0146 2.4000e-0030.0170SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 6.4810 6.4810PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.B.iPacket Pg. 245Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Fugitive Dust 0.0120 0.0000 0.0120 6.5500e-0030.0000 6.5500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.2000e-0030.0258 0.0473 7.0000e-0051.2000e-0041.2000e-0041.2000e-0041.2000e-0040.0000 6.4810 6.4810 2.1000e-0030.0000 6.5334Total 1.2000e-0030.0258 0.0473 7.0000e-0052.1000e-0030.0000 6.53340.0120 1.2000e-0040.0121 6.5500e-0031.2000e-0046.6700e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 6.4810 6.4810PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.4 Building Construction - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-Site8.B.iPacket Pg. 246Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0500 0.4509 0.5428 9.3000e-0040.0239 0.0239 0.0234 0.0234 0.0000 80.2937 80.2937 7.5700e-0030.0000 80.4828Total 0.0500 0.4509 0.5428 9.3000e-0047.5700e-0030.0000 80.48280.0239 0.0239 0.0234 0.0234SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 80.2937 80.2937PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.58.B.iPacket Pg. 247Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Off-Road 0.0176 0.3418 0.5923 9.3000e-0041.2900e-0031.2900e-0031.2900e-0031.2900e-0030.0000 80.2936 80.2936 7.5700e-0030.0000 80.4827Total 0.0176 0.3418 0.5923 9.3000e-0047.5700e-0030.0000 80.48271.2900e-0031.2900e-0031.2900e-0031.2900e-003SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 80.2936 80.2936PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.4 Building Construction - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 0.0254 0.2293 0.2981 5.1000e-0040.0114 0.0114 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 44.2303 44.2303 4.0400e-0030.0000 44.3313Total 0.0254 0.2293 0.2981 5.1000e-0044.0400e-0030.0000 44.33130.0114 0.0114 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 44.2303 44.23038.B.iPacket Pg. 248Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 9.7100e-0030.1883 0.3263 5.1000e-0047.1000e-0047.1000e-0047.1000e-0047.1000e-0040.0000 44.2302 44.2302 4.0400e-0030.0000 44.3312Total 9.7100e-0030.1883 0.3263 5.1000e-0044.0400e-0030.0000 44.33127.1000e-0047.1000e-0047.1000e-0047.1000e-0040.0000 44.2302 44.2302Mitigated Construction Off-Site8.B.iPacket Pg. 249Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Trenching - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 2.4000e-0042.4600e-0033.2900e-0030.0000 1.3000e-0041.3000e-0041.2000e-0041.2000e-0040.0000 0.4015 0.4015 1.3000e-0040.0000 0.4047Total 2.4000e-0042.4600e-0033.2900e-0030.00001.3000e-0040.0000 0.40471.3000e-0041.3000e-0041.2000e-0041.2000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.4015 0.4015PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.B.iPacket Pg. 250Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.0000e-0041.9900e-0033.4400e-0030.0000 1.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.0000 0.4015 0.4015 1.3000e-0040.0000 0.4047Total 1.0000e-0041.9900e-0033.4400e-0030.00001.3000e-0040.0000 0.40471.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.4015 0.4015PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.B.iPacket Pg. 251Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.5 Trenching - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.2000e-0041.2400e-0031.8100e-0030.0000 6.0000e-0056.0000e-0056.0000e-0056.0000e-0050.0000 0.2214 0.2214 7.0000e-0050.0000 0.2232Total 1.2000e-0041.2400e-0031.8100e-0030.00007.0000e-0050.0000 0.22326.0000e-0056.0000e-0056.0000e-0056.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.2214 0.2214PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Mitigated Construction On-Site8.B.iPacket Pg. 252Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 6.0000e-0051.1000e-0031.9000e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2214 0.2214 7.0000e-0050.0000 0.2232Total 6.0000e-0051.1000e-0031.9000e-0030.00007.0000e-0050.0000 0.22320.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.2214 0.2214PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.6 Architectural Coating - 2022Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.1890 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00008.B.iPacket Pg. 253Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Off-Road 0.0345 0.2376 0.3059 5.0000e-0040.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0000 43.0649 43.0649 2.8000e-0030.0000 43.1350Total 0.2235 0.2376 0.3059 5.0000e-0042.8000e-0030.0000 43.13500.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 43.0649 43.0649PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.1890 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 9.1900e-0030.1788 0.3091 5.0000e-0046.7000e-0046.7000e-0046.7000e-0046.7000e-0040.0000 43.0648 43.0648 2.8000e-0030.0000 43.1349Total 0.1982 0.1788 0.3091 5.0000e-0042.8000e-0030.0000 43.13496.7000e-0046.7000e-0046.7000e-0046.7000e-0040.0000 43.0648 43.06488.B.iPacket Pg. 254Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.6 Architectural Coating - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.1870 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0320 0.2174 0.3022 5.0000e-0040.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0000 42.5968 42.5968 2.5500e-0030.0000 42.6605Total 0.2190 0.2174 0.3022 5.0000e-0042.5500e-0030.0000 42.66050.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 42.5968 42.5968PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.58.B.iPacket Pg. 255Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Category tons/yrMT/yrHauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Archit. Coating 0.1870 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 9.0900e-0030.1768 0.3057 5.0000e-0046.6000e-0046.6000e-0046.6000e-0046.6000e-0040.0000 42.5967 42.5967 2.5500e-0030.0000 42.6604Total 0.1961 0.1768 0.3057 5.0000e-0042.5500e-0030.0000 42.66046.6000e-0046.6000e-0046.6000e-0046.6000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 42.5967 42.5967PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.B.iPacket Pg. 256Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO23.7 Paving - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 3.8000e-0043.5800e-0034.7200e-0031.0000e-0051.8000e-0041.8000e-0041.7000e-0041.7000e-0040.0000 0.6342 0.6342 2.0000e-0040.0000 0.6391Paving 1.0600e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 1.4400e-0033.5800e-0034.7200e-0031.0000e-0052.0000e-0040.0000 0.63911.8000e-0041.8000e-0041.7000e-0041.7000e-004SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.6342 0.6342PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.B.iPacket Pg. 257Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Off-Road 1.1000e-0042.9500e-0035.0800e-0031.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0050.0000 0.6342 0.6342 2.0000e-0040.0000 0.6391Paving 1.0600e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 1.1700e-0032.9500e-0035.0800e-0031.0000e-0052.0000e-0040.0000 0.63911.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-0051.0000e-005SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM100.0000 0.6342 0.6342PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile8.B.iPacket Pg. 258Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2ROG NOxNBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.0547 0.2111 0.6407 2.3800e-0030.2353 1.8600e-0030.2371 0.0630 1.7300e-0030.0647 0.0000 218.3790 218.3790 6.7800e-0030.0000 218.5485Unmitigated 0.0547 0.2111 0.6407 2.3800e-0030.2353 1.8600e-0030.2371 0.0630 1.7300e-0030.0647 0.0000 218.3790 218.3790 6.7800e-0030.0000 218.54854.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedLand Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMTOther Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00Single Family Housing 276.08 287.39 249.98 632,757 632,757Total 276.08 287.39 249.98 632,757 632,7574.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-WH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byOther Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 34.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHOther Asphalt Surfaces 0.614951 0.035734 0.181842 0.104158 0.013506 0.005015 0.012793 0.021727 0.002177 0.001514 0.005249 0.000632 0.0007040.021727 0.002177 0.001514 0.005249Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.614951 0.035734 0.181842 0.104158 0.0135060.104158 0.013506 0.005015 0.0127930.005015 0.0127930.001514 0.005249 0.000632 0.0007040.000632 0.0007040.021727 0.002177Single Family Housing 0.614951 0.035734 0.1818428.B.iPacket Pg. 259Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO25.0 Energy DetailHistorical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROGNBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalElectricity Mitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.3492 22.3492 3.0900e-0036.4000e-00422.6167Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.3492 22.3492 3.0900e-0036.4000e-00422.6167NaturalGas Mitigated4.5400e-0030.0388 0.0165 2.5000e-0043.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0030.0000 44.9797 44.9797 8.6000e-0048.2000e-00445.2470NaturalGas Unmitigated4.5400e-0030.0388 0.0165 2.5000e-00444.9797 44.9797 8.6000e-0048.2000e-00445.24703.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-003ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.00003.1400e-003PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseNBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Single Family Housing842888 4.5400e-0030.0388 0.01658.6000e-0048.2000e-0042.5000e-0043.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0030.0000 44.9797 44.97970.0000 44.979745.2470Total 4.5400e-0030.0388 0.0165 2.5000e-00444.9797 8.6000e-0048.2000e-00445.24703.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0038.B.iPacket Pg. 260Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrOther Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Single Family Housing842888 4.5400e-0030.038844.9797 8.6000e-0040.0165 2.5000e-0043.1400e-0033.1400e-0032.5000e-0043.1400e-0033.1400e-0030.0000 44.97973.1400e-0030.00008.2000e-00445.2470Total 4.5400e-0030.0388 0.016544.9797 44.9797 8.6000e-0048.2000e-00445.24705.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity3.1400e-0033.1400e-0033.1400e-0030.0000 0.0000UnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrOther Asphalt Surfaces0 0.000022.3492 3.0900e-0036.4000e-0040.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.000022.6167Total 22.3492 3.0900e-0036.4000e-00422.6167Single Family Housing234627Mitigated8.B.iPacket Pg. 261Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Electricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrOther Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000022.6167Single Family Housing234627 22.3492 3.0900e-0036.4000e-004CO SO2 Fugitive PM1022.6167Total 22.3492 3.0900e-0036.4000e-004Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO26.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOxNBio- CO2Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM10PM10 TotalMitigated 0.4215 6.2300e-0030.4638 5.2000e-0040.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 3.6862 1.2568 4.9431 7.3000e-0032.1000e-0045.1884Unmitigated 0.4215 6.2300e-0030.4638 5.2000e-0047.3000e-0032.1000e-0045.18840.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 3.6862 1.2568 4.94316.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated8.B.iPacket Pg. 262Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.0376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.2065 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hearth 0.1709 3.7500e-0030.2485 5.1000e-0040.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 3.6862 0.9051 4.5913 6.9600e-0032.1000e-0044.8282Landscaping 6.4700e-0032.4800e-0030.2153 1.0000e-0051.1900e-0031.1900e-0031.1900e-0031.1900e-0030.0000 0.3518 0.3518 3.4000e-0040.0000 0.3602Total 0.4215 6.2300e-0030.4638 5.2000e-0047.3000e-0032.1000e-0045.18840.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM103.6862 1.2568 4.9431PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio- CO2MitigatedROG NOx COTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Architectural Coating0.0376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.2065 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hearth 0.1709 3.7500e-0030.2485 5.1000e-0040.0358 0.0358 0.0358 0.0358 3.6862 0.9051 4.5913 6.9600e-0032.1000e-0044.8282Landscaping 6.4700e-0032.4800e-0030.2153 1.0000e-0051.1900e-0031.1900e-0031.1900e-0031.1900e-0030.0000 0.3518 0.3518 3.4000e-0040.0000 0.3602Total 0.4215 6.2300e-0030.4638 5.2000e-0040.0370 0.0370 0.0370 0.0370 3.6862 1.2568 4.9431 7.3000e-0032.1000e-0045.18847.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water8.B.iPacket Pg. 263Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eCategorytonMT/yrMitigated 1.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0033.9593Unmitigated 1.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0033.95937.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use MgaltonMT/yrOther Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.88947 / 1.191191.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0030.00000.0000CO2e3.9593Total 1.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0033.9593Single Family HousingMitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O8.B.iPacket Pg. 264Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Land Use MgaltonMT/yrOther Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.00001.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0030.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.00003.9593Total 1.9704 0.0618 1.4900e-0033.9593Single Family Housing1.88947 / 1.191198.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2etonMT/yr Mitigated 7.0763 0.4182 0.0000 17.5312 Unmitigated 7.0763 0.4182 0.0000 17.53128.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use tonstonMT/yr8.B.iPacket Pg. 265Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Other Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.000034.86 7.0763 0.4182 0.00000.00000.0000CO2e17.5312Total 7.0763 0.4182 0.0000 17.5312Single Family Housing0.0000 0.0000MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O0.0000 0.0000Land Use tonstonMT/yrOther Asphalt Surfaces0 0.00007.0763 0.4182 0.00000.0000Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.000017.5312Total 7.0763 0.4182 0.0000 17.5312Single Family Housing34.86Horse Power Load Factor9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse PowerBoiler Rating Fuel TypeLoad Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year8.B.iPacket Pg. 266Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) User Defined EquipmentEquipment Type Number11.0 Vegetation8.B.iPacket Pg. 267Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Attachment 3: EMFAC2017 Calculations 8.B.i Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Phase CalEEMod WORKER TRIPSCalEEMod VENDOR TRIPSTotal Worker TripsTotal Vendor TripsCalEEMod HAULING TRIPSWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassWorker VMTVendor VMTHauling VMTSite Preparation 3 0 9 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 97.2 0 0Grading 8 0 624 0 319 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 6739.2 0 6380Building Construction 28 10 10248 3660 290 10.8 7.3 7.3 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 110678.426718 2117Trenching3 0 1098 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 11858.400Architectural Coating6 0 2196 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 23716.8 0 0Paving 8 0 16 0 34 10.8 7.3 7.3 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 172.8 0 248.22022 1/4/22 12/31/22 3623102023 1/1/23 8/2/23 214183576494Total WorkdaysPhase Start Date End Date Days/Week WorkdaysSite Preparation1/4/2022 1/6/2022 6 3Grading1/7/2022 4/7/2022 6 78Building Construction4/1/2022 6/1/2023 6 366Trenching4/1/2022 6/1/2023 6 366Architectural Coating6/1/2022 8/1/2023 6 366Paving8/1/2023 8/2/2023 6 2Number of Days Per YearCalEEMod Construction Inputs8.B.iPacket Pg. 269Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) PollutantsROG NOx CO SO2Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total NBio‐ CO2YEARMetric Tons20220.0088 0.0296 0.0452 0.0001 0.0038 0.0009 0.0047 0.0006 0.0004 0.0010 8.784620230.0048 0.0159 0.0262 0.0000 0.0023 0.0005 0.0028 0.0003 0.0002 0.0006 5.0077Summary of Construction Traffic Emissions (EMFAC2017) TonsToxic Air Contaminants (1 Mile Trip Length)8.B.iPacket Pg. 270Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) NOx ExhaustTOG EvaporativeTOG ExhaustPM ExhaustCO ExhaustCO2 Exhaust1 1 1111*PM Exhaust off model factor is only applied to the PM Exhaust emissions not start/idle1.0002 1.0001 1.0002 1.0009 1.0005 1.00231.0004 1.0003 1.0004 1.0018 1.0014 1.00651.0007 1.0006 1.0007 1.0032 1.0027 1.01261.0012 1.0010 1.0011 1.0051 1.0044 1.02071.0018 1.0016 1.0016 1.0074 1.0065 1.03091.0023 1.0022 1.0020 1.0091 1.0083 1.0394Enter NA in the date field if adjustments do not apply1.0028 1.0028 1.0024 1.0105 1.0102 1.04751.0034 1.0035 1.0028 1.0117 1.0120 1.05541.0040 1.0042 1.0032 1.0129 1.0138 1.06291.0047 1.0051 1.0037 1.0142 1.0156 1.07021.0054 1.0061 1.0042 1.0155 1.0173 1.07701.0061 1.0072 1.0047 1.0169 1.0189 1.08341.0068 1.0083 1.0052 1.0182 1.0204 1.08931.0075 1.0095 1.0058 1.0196 1.0218 1.09471.0081 1.0108 1.0063 1.0210 1.0232 1.09971.0088 1.0121 1.0069 1.0223 1.0244 1.10411.0094 1.0134 1.0074 1.0236 1.0255 1.10801.0099 1.0148 1.0079 1.0248 1.0265 1.11141.0104 1.0161 1.0085 1.0259 1.0274 1.11431.0109 1.0174 1.0090 1.0270 1.0281 1.11681.0113 1.0186 1.0095 1.0279 1.0288 1.11891.0116 1.0198 1.0099 1.0286 1.0294 1.12071.0119 1.0207 1.0103 1.0293 1.0299 1.12211.0122 1.0216 1.0106 1.0299 1.0303 1.12331.0124 1.0225 1.0109 1.0303 1.0306 1.12431.0125 1.0233 1.0111 1.0308 1.0309 1.12511.0127 1.0240 1.0113 1.0311 1.0311 1.12581.0128 1.0246 1.0115 1.0314 1.0313 1.12631.0128 1.0252 1.0116 1.0316 1.0315 1.12681.0129 1.0257 1.0117 1.0318 1.0316 1.1272Enter Year: 2023 1.0007 1.0006 1.0007 1.0032 1.0027 1.01262024Year2021202220232042203620252026202720282029203020312032203320342035The off-model adjustment factors need to be applied only to emissions from gasoline light duty vehicles (LDA, LDT1, LDT2 and MDV). Please note that the adjustment factors are by calendar year and includes all model years.Adjustment Factors for EMFAC2017 Gasoline Light Duty Vehicles20492050NA204320442045204620472048203720382039204020418.B.iPacket Pg. 271Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: Santa ClaraCalendar Year: 2022Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX, RESTLOSS and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_REST ROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_RESTLTOG_DIUR CO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSanta Clara2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.973172 516.9338 99.50323 3.654204 0 0.338391 0.001236 0 0.000744 0.005 0.02646 0.001344 0 0.00081 0.02 0.06174 1964.961 0 46.86739 0.097725 0 0.00044 0.140899 0 0.010576 0.4946720 0.002301 0.136891 0.830556 0.033943 0.061166 0.721824 0 0.00252 0.136891 0.830556 0.033943 0.061166 30.00648 0 5.27737 0.019445 0 0.000464Santa Clara2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8277.463 1011013 88031.26 3.53549963.08378 2.080194 0.033949 0.03347 0 0.008873 0.026088 0.035484 0.034983 0 0.035494 0.060872 1486.606 11783.13 0 0.003901 0.215524 0 0.233674 1.852143 0 0.08399 4.640183000000.095616 5.282495000000.366847 63.30293 0 0.014045 0.111321 0Santa Clara2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 348.7902 14223.14 1360.282 1.755776 21.14752 0 0.004789 0.030991 0 0.009 0.02646 0.005006 0.032392 0 0.036 0.06174 3203.692 4060.116 0 3.511574 1.248503 0 0.653093 0.827681 0 0.161697 0.045805000003.710887 1.3060540000010.70122 21.556620000Santa Clara2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 733557.7 26455304 3456649 0.038720 0.197227 0.001299 0 0.001748 0.002 0.01575 0.001413 0 0.001902 0.008 0.03675 259.2126 0 55.39361 0.002345 0 0.054199 0.004449 0 0.026685 0.0090150 0.243726 0.100881 0.22086 0.178182 0.20337 0.013151 0 0.266848 0.100881 0.22086 0.178182 0.20337 0.63218 0 2.325265 0.002565 0 0.000548Santa Clara2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7146.668 268335.1 33963.02 0.0715560 0 0.006579 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.006877 0 0 0.008 0.03675 200.3149 0 0 0.000626 0 0 0.031487 0 0 0.0134850000000.0153520000000.198488 0 0 0.001894 0 0Santa Clara2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 25894.61 943282.8 1264280000000.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 73556.92 2443329 340743.8 0.091156 0 0.251292 0.001724 0 0.002226 0.002 0.01575 0.001875 0 0.002421 0.008 0.03675 300.527 0 64.49485 0.004882 0 0.070027 0.007217 0 0.028775 0.021236 0 0.344801 0.173613 0.628849 0.332831 0.420667 0.030964 0 0.377511 0.173613 0.628849 0.332831 0.420667 1.068397 0 2.450832 0.002974 0 0.000638Santa Clara2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 36.8388 667.9121 121.0603 1.1853150 0 0.157566 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.164691 0 0 0.008 0.03675 408.3259 0 0 0.009501 0 0 0.064183 0 0 0.2045610000000.2328790000001.159574 0 0 0.00386 0 0Santa Clara2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 624.8771 24059.07 3099.469 0 000000.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 250455.4 8295824 1167439 0.077278 0 0.299792 0.001307 0 0.001684 0.002 0.01575 0.001421 0 0.001831 0.008 0.03675 327.6413 0 71.42656 0.003665 0 0.072415 0.006473 0 0.033384 0.014906 0 0.339292 0.128171 0.436499 0.281495 0.299507 0.021744 0 0.371482 0.128171 0.436499 0.281495 0.299507 0.860463 0 2.923834 0.003242 0 0.000707Santa Clara2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1663.513 62652.21 8136.947 0.039252 0 0 0.004754 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.004969 0 0 0.008 0.03675 275.5741 0 0 0.000647 0 0 0.043316 0 0 0.0139350000000.0158640000000.123161 0 0 0.002605 0 0Santa Clara2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2695.96 82111.52 13502.44 0 0 00 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 16536.9 566343.8 246375.2 0.235238 0.038471 0.530556 0.002161 0 0.000388 0.002 0.03276 0.00235 0 0.000422 0.008 0.07644 1006.569 121.1222 18.98971 0.01086 0.121305 0.025473 0.014262 0.003125 0.041267 0.052874 0.440699 0.129054 0.125369 0.861898 0.025267 0.050121 0.077153 0.643067 0.141298 0.125369 0.861898 0.025267 0.050121 0.97349 3.751848 1.764958 0.009961 0.001199 0.000188Santa Clara2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11104.44 423266.4 139679.8 1.613919 2.033114 0 0.021273 0.026869 0 0.003 0.03276 0.022235 0.028084 0 0.012 0.07644 544.3042 133.047 0 0.007318 0.005098 0 0.085557 0.020913 0 0.157544 0.10976000000.179353 0.124954000000.661457 0.909745 0 0.005146 0.001258 0Santa Clara2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2253.3 77523.96 33570.81 0.240034 0.037891 0.516259 0.002078 0 0.000346 0.002 0.03822 0.00226 0 0.0003770.008 0.08918 1147.291 139.0737 21.54397 0.008737 0.120275 0.024583 0.015135 0.003045 0.039911 0.039365 0.434196 0.123837 0.121118 0.819863 0.023133 0.046225 0.057441 0.633578 0.135586 0.121118 0.819863 0.023133 0.046225 0.722025 3.75488 1.776904 0.011353 0.001376 0.000213Santa Clara2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4438.985 166319.5 55836.85 1.346918 2.041795 0 0.021771 0.027131 0 0.003 0.03822 0.022756 0.028358 0 0.012 0.08918 612.5422 213.4891 0 0.007003 0.005098 0 0.096283 0.033558 0 0.150761 0.10976000000.171631 0.124954000000.634383 0.909745 0 0.005791 0.002018 0Santa Clara2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 32925.36 241011 65850.71 1.1516110 0.270649 0.001812 0 0.002978 0.001 0.00504 0.001937 0 0.003161 0.004 0.01176 210.2729 0 61.39967 0.328946 0 0.256691 0.06628 0 0.015352 2.228751 01.954835 0.704215 2.060677 0.995009 1.817765 2.753726 0 2.127328 0.704215 2.060677 0.995009 1.817765 19.18808 0 9.0045 0.002081 0 0.000608Santa Clara2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 151961.1 4876240 702265.7 0.099589 0 0.371177 0.001397 0 0.001912 0.002 0.01575 0.001519 0 0.002079 0.008 0.03675 396.236 0 86.90417 0.004621 0 0.087878 0.007887 0 0.036541 0.0194460 0.437645 0.147462 0.472734 0.331376 0.347901 0.028322 0 0.479161 0.147462 0.472734 0.331376 0.347901 0.980018 0 3.406111 0.003921 0 0.00086Santa Clara2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3721.225 135478.8 18101.22 0.0387750 0 0.004203 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.004393 0 0 0.008 0.03675 360.3121 0 0 0.000478 0 0 0.056636 0 0 0.0102850000000.0117090000000.184421 0 0 0.003406 0 0Santa Clara2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1080.167 34834.41 5508.057 0 0 00 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2891.835 26265.33 289.2991 0.413359 0 0.334516 0.001633 0 0.000362 0.003 0.05586 0.001776 0 0.000394 0.012 0.13034 1756.095 0 25.97914 0.015124 0 0.032419 0.025426 0 0.034963 0.066433 0 0.137518 0.088945 2.156488 0.036513 0.106238 0.096939 0 0.150564 0.088945 2.156488 0.036513 0.106238 1.697423 0 3.037213 0.017378 0 0.000257Santa Clara2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1019.353 9712.32 101.9353 4.184918 0 00.085576 0 0 0.004 0.05586 0.089445 0 0 0.016 0.13034 1018.587 0 0 0.005027 00 0.160108 0 0 0.1082250000000.1232060000000.382773 0 0 0.009629 0 0Santa Clara2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1456.112 75284.48 29133.88 0.474932 0.088412 0.377896 0.001319 0 0.000469 0.003 0.05586 0.001435 0 0.00051 0.012 0.13034 1722.789 532.6547 39.09903 0.014881 0.262553 0.04023 0.023376 0.007484 0.029181 0.072945 1.011617 0.219187 0.087649 0.506692 0.018903 0.038182 0.106442 1.47615 0.239982 0.087649 0.506692 0.018903 0.038182 1.680953 15.10368 4.939745 0.017048 0.005271 0.000387Santa Clara2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9430.024 551923.8 94917.85 2.277066 7.413096 1.687822 0.039812 0.015538 0 0.003 0.05586 0.041612 0.01624 0 0.012 0.13034 1050.628 914.98 0 0.004378 0.004667 0 0.165144 0.143822 0 0.094265 0.100481000000.107314 0.11439000000.32147 2.58681 0 0.009926 0.008644 0Santa Clara2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 501.9655 24150.25 10043.33 0.443255 0.065137 0.32561 0.000952 0 0.000213 0.003 0.05586 0.001035 0 0.000232 0.012 0.13034 1767.375 377.9272 26.38965 0.013022 0.200837 0.030332 0.022732 0.005646 0.026387 0.061436 0.747416 0.156088 0.026802 0.295531 0.015889 0.036065 0.089647 1.090627 0.170897 0.026802 0.295531 0.0158890.036065 1.365657 5.781487 3.261978 0.01749 0.00374 0.000261Santa Clara2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 762.3964 53839.19 6991.348 2.314382 10.4182 2.005848 0.021086 0.015288 0 0.003 0.05586 0.02204 0.015979 0 0.012 0.13034 1185.916 1892.098 0 0.002538 0.027964 0 0.18641 0.297411 0 0.054653 0.602048000000.062218 0.685386000000.239321 8.657847 0 0.011204 0.017876 0Santa Clara2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 249.3134 11500.83 997.2534 0.430325 0.924415 0.566946 0.001196 0 0.000498 0.002 0.3192 0.001301 0 0.000541 0.008 0.7448 865.5448 2582.545 48.67377 0.011856 2.442701 0.058309 0.024366 0.088243 0.053528 0.058325 10.61061 0.332747 0.061157 0.415506 0.010413 0.025261 0.085108 15.48298 0.364316 0.061157 0.415506 0.010413 0.025261 1.259002 82.05319 8.624782 0.008565 0.025556 0.000482Santa Clara2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1014.086 31965.96 11702.42 6.765334 45.00081 0.786274 0.042018 0.05033 0 0.003 0.3192 0.043917 0.052605 0 0.012 0.7448 1145.085 3716.49 0 0.004669 0.013069 0 0.179991 0.584181 0 0.100532 0.281366000000.114448 0.320314000000.27746 5.867721 0 0.010818 0.035112 0Santa Clara2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 8.419396 1059.849 33.67758 0.491737 0 1.236285 0.000328 0 9.7E‐05 0.003 0.05586 0.000356 0 0.000105 0.012 0.13034 2351.817 0 104.599 0.006789 0 0.178596 0.036386 0 0.091633 0.022728 0 0.768536 0.190076 1.35875 0.031079 0.049249 0.033164 0 0.84145 0.190076 1.35875 0.031079 0.049249 0.527722 0 8.852622 0.023273 0 0.001035Santa Clara2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 423.2358 46482.16 1692.943 0.803453 0 0 0.005651 0 0 0.008415 0.029326 0.005907 0 0 0.033661 0.068427 1481.1780 0 0.077358 0 0 0.232821 0 0 0.0011050000000.0789490000000.131304 0 0 0.014002 0 0Santa Clara2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 104.0289 12325.91 416.1154 0.48934 0 0 0.003183 0 0 0.008475 0.029034 0.003327 0 0 0.033899 0.067746 2016.3 0 0 6.413607 0 0 0.411036 0 0 0.0916380000006.54555600000049.80397000008.B.iPacket Pg. 272Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: Santa ClaraCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX, RESTLOSS and DIURNRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_REST ROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_RESTLTOG_DIUR CO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSanta Clara2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.815448 553.4124 96.34748 3.178298 0 0.254165 0.001157 0 0.000623 0.005 0.02646 0.001259 0 0.000677 0.02 0.06174 1915.642 0 46.38676 0.084318 0 0.000462 0.130889 0 0.008571 0.409676 0 0.002416 0.109047 0.558691 0.026465 0.047808 0.597798 0 0.002645 0.109047 0.558691 0.026465 0.047808 27.8207 0 5.57125 0.018957 0 0.000459Santa Clara2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8401.79 1034051 89180.29 2.696198 57.80539 2.360147 0.023887 0.026373 0 0.008879 0.026103 0.024967 0.027565 0 0.035514 0.060907 1411.729 11326.45 0 0.001106 0.214953 0 0.221904 1.78036 0 0.023817 4.627869000000.027114 5.268477000000.233741 67.52667 0 0.013337 0.107007 0Santa Clara2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 360.3246 14693.25 1405.266 1.588314 20.76108 0 0.004529 0.028055 0 0.009 0.02646 0.004734 0.029323 0 0.036 0.06174 3174.275 4018.428 0 3.456549 1.237751 0 0.647097 0.819183 0 0.148044 0.042416000003.64007 1.2913930000010.76049 21.607890000Santa Clara2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 751359.6 26739811 3542534 0.034059 0 0.184615 0.001247 0 0.001682 0.002 0.01575 0.001356 0 0.001829 0.008 0.03675 252.091 0 53.87356 0.002048 0 0.050071 0.004113 0 0.025656 0.0076960 0.221504 0.094205 0.212597 0.166193 0.187545 0.011228 0 0.242518 0.094205 0.212597 0.166193 0.187545 0.586148 0 2.259775 0.002495 0 0.000533Santa Clara2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7591.987 280497.7 36090.42 0.0586790 0 0.005598 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.005851 0 0 0.008 0.03675 195.1926 0 0 0.000552 0 0 0.030682 0 0 0.0118870000000.0135320000000.188023 0 0 0.001845 0 0Santa Clara2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 28074.67 1034348 136585.90000000.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75517.84 2475367 350251 0.0787450 0.232751 0.001604 0 0.002087 0.002 0.01575 0.001745 0 0.00227 0.008 0.03675 292.8794 0 62.80265 0.004214 0 0.063907 0.006493 0 0.02759 0.018087 0 0.309393 0.159698 0.584022 0.309209 0.384203 0.026384 0 0.338746 0.159698 0.584022 0.309209 0.384203 0.955745 0 2.366858 0.002898 0 0.000621Santa Clara2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 34.1777 620.5176 112.4335 1.0988910 0 0.146297 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.152912 0 0 0.008 0.03675 401.6268 0 0 0.008837 0 0 0.06313 0 0 0.1902560000000.2165940000001.080107 0 0 0.003797 0 0Santa Clara2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 788.4144 31182.48 3917.01 0 0 00 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 254167.5 8294772 1184412 0.068370 0.275999 0.001263 0 0.001639 0.002 0.01575 0.001374 0 0.001783 0.008 0.03675 316.8848 0 69.17216 0.003305 0 0.067695 0.00592 0 0.031692 0.013288 00.313842 0.123254 0.427158 0.276975 0.291298 0.019387 0 0.343617 0.123254 0.427158 0.276975 0.291298 0.800025 0 2.837237 0.003136 0 0.000685Santa Clara2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1802.688 66004.69 8781.203 0.037098 0 0 0.004581 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.004788 0 0 0.008 0.03675 268.3329 0 0 0.000636 0 0 0.042178 0 0 0.013690000000.0155850000000.124122 0 0 0.002537 0 0Santa Clara2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3304.555 98384.64 16510.28 0 000000.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 16555.13 562142 246646.7 0.210457 0.037398 0.511224 0.002137 0 0.000377 0.002 0.03276 0.002324 0 0.000410.008 0.07644 994.5276 120.0678 18.82225 0.009676 0.118805 0.02387 0.012895 0.003089 0.040194 0.046707 0.428491 0.120584 0.120359 0.829144 0.024473 0.047994 0.068155 0.625253 0.132025 0.120359 0.829144 0.024473 0.047994 0.867722 3.754766 1.724 0.009842 0.001188 0.000186Santa Clara2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11594.64 435998.6 145846 1.4005621.919948 0 0.019496 0.026734 0 0.003 0.03276 0.020378 0.027943 0 0.012 0.07644 535.8142 131.265 0 0.007088 0.005098 0 0.084223 0.020633 0 0.152594 0.10976000000.173718 0.124954000000.641529 0.909745 0 0.005065 0.001241 0Santa Clara2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2285.018 77947.41 34043.37 0.21093 0.036728 0.496392 0.002042 0 0.000334 0.002 0.03822 0.00222 0 0.000363 0.008 0.08918 1132.921 137.76 21.32176 0.007566 0.117557 0.022949 0.013529 0.00301 0.038884 0.03359 0.420989 0.114958 0.114086 0.752468 0.022171 0.043386 0.049014 0.614306 0.125864 0.114086 0.752468 0.022171 0.043386 0.620201 3.758932 1.718516 0.011211 0.001363 0.000211Santa Clara2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4660.728 171541.4 58626.09 1.17888 1.93121 0 0.020832 0.02707 0 0.003 0.03822 0.021774 0.028294 0 0.012 0.08918 603.2432 210.8377 0 0.00683 0.005098 0 0.094821 0.033141 0 0.147052 0.10976000000.167409 0.124954000000.621451 0.909745 0 0.005703 0.001993 0Santa Clara2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 33683.49 242470.7 67366.97 1.148719 0 0.270672 0.00184 0 0.002859 0.001 0.00504 0.001969 0 0.003039 0.004 0.01176 210.1672 0 61.03922 0.326994 0 0.255241 0.066143 0 0.01536 2.2080570 1.941958 0.689105 1.969445 0.985054 1.809555 2.736079 0 2.11358 0.689105 1.969445 0.985054 1.809555 18.86893 0 9.034026 0.00208 0 0.000604Santa Clara2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 154431.4 4896063 714241.1 0.085683 0 0.336488 0.001332 0 0.001823 0.002 0.01575 0.001448 0 0.001982 0.008 0.03675 383.1839 0 84.08131 0.004049 0 0.08064 0.007039 0 0.034344 0.0168170 0.396565 0.140569 0.457303 0.323766 0.336538 0.024505 0 0.434185 0.140569 0.457303 0.323766 0.336538 0.891357 0 3.240031 0.003792 0 0.000832Santa Clara2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4004.429 142223.9 19410.39 0.0342920 0 0.003829 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0.004002 0 0 0.008 0.03675 350.448 0 0 0.0004450 0 0.055086 0 0 0.0095780000000.0109040000000.180483 0 0 0.003313 0 0Santa Clara2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1532.638 48234.63 7794.674 0 0 00 0 0 0.002 0.01575 0 0 0 0.008 0.036750000000000000.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501 0 0 0 0.004888 0 0.00456 0.017501000000Santa Clara2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2857.04 26157.03 285.8182 0.3614510 0.336127 0.001555 0 0.000345 0.003 0.05586 0.001691 0 0.000375 0.012 0.13034 1731.827 0 25.56622 0.013045 0 0.031746 0.02323 0 0.035777 0.05596 0 0.132332 0.081683 1.97006 0.033844 0.096831 0.081657 0 0.144887 0.0816831.97006 0.033844 0.096831 1.390474 0 2.91812 0.017138 0 0.000253Santa Clara2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1053.778 9907.819 105.3778 4.0099 0 0 0.079211 0 0 0.004 0.05586 0.082793 0 0 0.016 0.13034 1007.175 0 0 0.004873 0 00.158314 0 0 0.1049170000000.1194410000000.367033 0 0 0.009521 0 0Santa Clara2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1507.68 78317.15 30165.67 0.385258 0.088623 0.367592 0.001293 0 0.000446 0.003 0.05586 0.001406 0 0.000485 0.012 0.13034 1697.438 526.34 38.16999 0.011942 0.266499 0.038604 0.019927 0.007724 0.029367 0.057622 1.014767 0.206928 0.080059 0.455824 0.017154 0.033931 0.084081 1.480746 0.22656 0.080059 0.455824 0.017154 0.033931 1.316681 15.14023 4.623501 0.016798 0.005209 0.000378Santa Clara2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9262.822 558718.8 92583.75 1.592475.703996 2.12952 0.007398 0.005414 0 0.003 0.05586 0.007733 0.005658 0 0.012 0.13034 1010.629 886.4048 0 0.000529 0.003602 0 0.158857 0.13933 0 0.011387 0.077551000000.012963 0.088286000000.113094 2.687765 0 0.009548 0.008374 0Santa Clara2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 503.4572 23697.77 10073.17 0.401971 0.065148 0.321785 0.000992 0 0.000219 0.003 0.05586 0.001079 0 0.000239 0.012 0.13034 1743.614 374.6133 26.08015 0.011771 0.201157 0.029667 0.020963 0.005691 0.026276 0.05538 0.74759 0.152323 0.027045 0.299878 0.01619 0.03654 0.080811 1.090882 0.166775 0.027045 0.299878 0.01619 0.03654 1.211154 5.782545 3.193149 0.017254 0.003707 0.000258Santa Clara2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 753.4001 53354.33 6899.877 1.902854 8.28017 2.210652 0.009253 0.002588 0 0.003 0.05586 0.009671 0.002705 0 0.012 0.13034 1163.247 1820.683 0 0.000567 0.024706 0 0.182846 0.286186 0 0.012205 0.531913000000.013895 0.605542000000.141032 9.053135 0 0.01099 0.017201 0Santa Clara2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 263.5229 11968.77 1054.092 0.420713 0.924728 0.578334 0.001201 0 0.000506 0.002 0.3192 0.001307 0 0.000550.008 0.7448 859.0893 2565.057 48.16666 0.011122 2.441451 0.057864 0.023879 0.088232 0.054355 0.054742 10.61517 0.330464 0.063152 0.426847 0.010977 0.026004 0.07988 15.48964 0.361817 0.063152 0.426847 0.010977 0.026004 1.167899 82.08092 8.465591 0.008501 0.025383 0.000477Santa Clara2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1013.614 31894.7 11696.96 6.54497844.13946 0.832887 0.040645 0.046993 0 0.003 0.3192 0.042483 0.049118 0 0.012 0.7448 1136.76 3703.284 0 0.004568 0.012858 0 0.178683 0.582105 0 0.098352 0.27682000000.111967 0.315138000000.275014 6.038953 0 0.01074 0.034987 0Santa Clara2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 8.423223 1060.331 33.69289 0.150806 0 0.638272 0.002209 0 0.000888 0.003 0.05586 0.002402 0 0.000966 0.0120.13034 1956.542 0 88.49758 0.007038 0 0.09018 0.015696 0 0.066738 0.022728 0 0.374288 0.008476 0.037646 0.001991 0.00493 0.033164 0 0.409798 0.008476 0.037646 0.001991 0.00493 0.258128 0 8.852622 0.019362 0 0.000876Santa Clara2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 430.5287 46874.38 1722.115 0.802545 0 0 0.005646 0 0 0.008399 0.029403 0.005901 0 0 0.033598 0.068607 1480.0620 0 0.077245 0 0 0.232645 0 0 0.0011040000000.0788340000000.131094 0 0 0.013992 0 0Santa Clara2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 96.97562 11960.41 387.9025 0.491564 0 0 0.003197 0 0 0.008538 0.028723 0.003341 0 0 0.034153 0.06702 2024.074 0 0 6.451045 0 0 0.412621 0 0 0.0921730000006.58376500000050.12464000008.B.iPacket Pg. 273Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Attachment 4: Project Construction Emissions and Health Risk Calculations 8.B.i Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated DPM Modeled Emission Construction DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate Year Activity (ton/year) Source (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2)(g/s/m2) 2022 Construction 0.0416 CON_DPM 83.2 0.01900 2.39E-03 14616 1.64E-07 2023 Construction 0.0240 CON_DPM 48.0 0.01096 1.38E-03 14616 9.45E-08 Total 0.0656 131.3 0.0300 0.0038 Construction Hours hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 4380 Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated PM2.5 Modeled Emission Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2 ) g/s/m 2 2022 Construction CON_FUG 0.0152 30.4 0.00693 8.73E-04 14,616 5.97E-08 2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0003 0.7 0.00016 1.96E-05 14,616 1.34E-09 Total 0.0155 31.0 0.0071 0.0009 Construction Hours hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 4380 DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - With M itigation DPM Modeled Emission Construction DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate Year Activity (ton/year) Source (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2)(g/s/m2) 2022 Construction 0.0030 CON_DPM 6.0 0.00138 1.74E-04 14616 1.19E-08 2023 Construction 0.0019 CON_DPM 3.8 0.00087 1.09E-04 14616 7.48E-09 Total 0.0049 9.8 0.0022 0.0003 Construction Hours hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 4380 8.B.i Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation PM2.5 Modeled Emission Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2 ) g/s/m 2 2022 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.3 0.00327 4.12E-04 14,616 2.82E-08 2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0003 0.7 0.00016 1.96E-05 14,616 1.34E-09 Total 0.0075 15.0 0.0034 0.0004 Construction Hours hr/day = 12 (7am - 7pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 4380 Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Construction Health Impact Summary Maximum Impacts at Cancer Risk MEI Residential Location - Without Mitigatio Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million) Index Concentration Year (μg/m 3 )(μg/m3) Infant/Child (-) (μg/m 3 ) 2022 0.1053 0.0641 18.73 0.0211 0.16 2023 0.0607 0.0014 9.96 0.0121 0.06 Total --28.7 -- Maximum 0.1053 0.0641 -0.02 0.16 Maximum Impacts at Cancer Risk MEI Residential Location - With Mitigation Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million) Index Concentration Year (μg/m 3 )(μg/m3) Infant/Child (-) (μg/m 3 ) 2022 0.0076 0.0303 1.36 0.002 0.04 2023 0.0048 0.0014 0.79 0.001 0.01 Total --2.1 -- Maximum 0.0076 0.0303 - 0.002 0.04 - Tier 4 Interim Engine and BMP Mitigation 8.B.i Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2022 0.1053 10 1.43 2022 0.1053 - - 1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.1053 10 17.29 2022 0.1053 1 0.30 0.0211 0.0641 0.1598 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0607 10 9.96 2023 0.0607 1 0.17 0.0121 0.0014 0.0619 3 1 2 - 3 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 28.7 0.48 * Third trimester of pregnancy 8.B.i Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Construction Impacts - With Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0076 10 0.10 2022 0.0076 - - 1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0076 10 1.25 2022 0.0076 1 0.02 0.0015 0.0303 0.0360 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0048 10 0.79 2023 0.0048 1 0.01 0.0010 0.0014 0.0060 3 1 2 - 3 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 17 1 16-17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 18 1 17-18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 19 1 18-19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 20 1 19-20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 21 1 20-21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 22 1 21-22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 23 1 22-23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 24 1 23-24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 25 1 24-25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 26 1 25-26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 27 1 26-27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 28 1 27-28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 29 1 28-29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 30 1 29-30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 2.1 0.04 * Third trimester of pregnancy 8.B.i Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Attachment 5: Community Risk Modeling Information and Calculations 8.B.i Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) CT-EMFAC2017 Emissions Factors for Mantelli Drive File Name: Kern Cottages ‐ Santa Clara (SF) ‐ 2022 ‐ Annual.EF CT‐EMFAC2017 Version: 1.0.2.27401 Run Date: Area: Santa Clara (SF) Analysis Year: 2022 Season: Annual ======================================================================= Vehicle Category VMT Fraction Diesel VMT Fraction Gas VMT Fraction Across Category Within Category Within Category Truck 1 0.015 0.478 0.522 Truck 2 0.02 0.94 0.046 Non‐Truck 0.965 0.014 0.961 ======================================================================= Road Type: Major/Collector Silt Loading Factor: CARB 0.032 g/m2 Precipitation Correction: CARB P = 64 days N = 365 days ======================================================================= Fleet Average Running Exhaust Emission Factors (grams/veh‐mile) Pollutant Name <= 5 mph 10 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph PM2.5 0.010417 0.006915 0.004735 0.003408 0.002622 0.002145 0.001861 0.001715 TOG 0.220898 0.145348 0.097291 0.068555 0.051819 0.041294 0.034513 0.030252 Diesel PM 0.001756 0.001459 0.001108 0.000865 0.000743 0.000683 0.000662 0.000677 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Running Loss Emission Factors (grams/veh‐hour) Pollutant Name Emission Factor TOG 1.418515 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Tire Wear Factors (grams/veh‐mile) Pollutant Name Emission Factor PM2.5 0.002108 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Brake Wear Factors (grams/veh‐mile) Pollutant Name Emission Factor PM2.5 0.016811 ======================================================================= Fleet Average Road Dust Factors (grams/veh‐mile) Pollutant Name Emission Factor PM2.5 0.014871 =============================END======================================= 2/4/2021 14:04 8.B.i Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Mantelli Drive Traffic Emissions and Health Risk Calculations Analysis Year = 2022 2019 Caltrans 2022 Vehicle Vehicles Vehicles Type (veh/day) (veh/day) Total 10,485 10,800 1.03 Vehicles/Direction 5,400 Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 225 Traffic Data Year = 2019 Caltrans AADT (2017) & Truck %s (2018) AADT Total Existing Mantelli Drive 10,485 Percent of Total Vehicles 1.00% Increase From 2019 Traffic Increase per Year (%) = 8.B.i Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - On- and Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Mantelli Drive DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day DPM_EB_MAN Mantelli Drive Eastbound EB 2 315.1 0.20 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 5,400 DPM_WB_MAN Mantelli Drive Westbound WB 2 343.3 0.21 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 5,400 Total 10,800 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00066 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_EB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 3.91% 211 7.60E-06 9 6.44% 348 1.25E-05 17 5.52% 298 1.07E-05 2 2.59% 140 5.03E-06 10 7.25% 391 1.41E-05 18 3.34% 180 6.48E-06 3 2.82% 152 5.48E-06 11 6.33% 342 1.23E-05 19 2.42% 130 4.70E-06 4 3.39% 183 6.60E-06 12 6.90% 373 1.34E-05 20 0.92% 50 1.79E-06 5 2.19% 118 4.25E-06 13 6.27% 338 1.22E-05 21 2.99% 161 5.81E-06 6 3.39% 183 6.60E-06 14 6.15% 332 1.20E-05 22 4.14% 224 8.05E-06 7 6.10% 329 1.19E-05 15 5.12% 276 9.95E-06 23 2.47% 134 4.81E-06 8 4.66% 252 9.06E-06 16 3.85% 208 7.49E-06 24 0.86% 47 1.68E-06 Total 5,400 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_WB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 3.91% 211 8.28E-06 9 6.44% 348 1.36E-05 17 5.52% 298 1.17E-05 2 2.59% 140 5.48E-06 10 7.25% 391 1.53E-05 18 3.34% 180 7.06E-06 3 2.82% 152 5.97E-06 11 6.33% 342 1.34E-05 19 2.42% 130 5.12E-06 4 3.39% 183 7.19E-06 12 6.90% 373 1.46E-05 20 0.92% 50 1.95E-06 5 2.19% 118 4.63E-06 13 6.27% 338 1.33E-05 21 2.99% 161 6.33E-06 6 3.39% 183 7.19E-06 14 6.15% 332 1.30E-05 22 4.14% 224 8.77E-06 7 6.10% 329 1.29E-05 15 5.12% 276 1.08E-05 23 2.47% 134 5.24E-06 8 4.66% 252 9.87E-06 16 3.85% 208 8.16E-06 24 0.86% 47 1.83E-06 Total 5,400 8.B.i Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - On- and Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Mantelli Drive PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emis sions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day PM2.5_EB_MAN Mantelli Drive Eastbound EB 2 315.1 0.20 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 PM2.5_WB_MAN Mantelli Drive Westbound WB 2 343.3 0.21 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 Total 10,800 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001861 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_EB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.15% 62 6.29E-06 9 7.11% 384 3.89E-05 17 7.39% 399 4.04E-05 2 0.42% 23 2.29E-06 10 4.39% 237 2.40E-05 18 8.17% 441 4.47E-05 3 0.41% 22 2.24E-06 11 4.67% 252 2.55E-05 19 5.70% 308 3.11E-05 4 0.27% 14 1.46E-06 12 5.89% 318 3.22E-05 20 4.27% 231 2.34E-05 5 0.50% 27 2.73E-06 13 6.15% 332 3.36E-05 21 3.26% 176 1.78E-05 6 0.91% 49 4.95E-06 14 6.03% 326 3.30E-05 22 3.30% 178 1.80E-05 7 3.79% 205 2.07E-05 15 7.01% 378 3.83E-05 23 2.46% 133 1.34E-05 8 7.76% 419 4.24E-05 16 7.13% 385 3.90E-05 24 1.86% 101 1.02E-05 Total 5,400 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_WB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.15% 62 6.85E-06 9 7.11% 384 4.24E-05 17 7.39% 399 4.40E-05 2 0.42% 23 2.50E-06 10 4.39% 237 2.62E-05 18 8.17% 441 4.86E-05 3 0.41% 22 2.44E-06 11 4.67% 252 2.78E-05 19 5.70% 308 3.39E-05 4 0.27% 14 1.59E-06 12 5.89% 318 3.51E-05 20 4.27% 231 2.54E-05 5 0.50% 27 2.97E-06 13 6.15% 332 3.66E-05 21 3.26% 176 1.94E-05 6 0.91% 49 5.40E-06 14 6.03% 326 3.59E-05 22 3.30% 178 1.97E-05 7 3.79% 205 2.26E-05 15 7.01% 378 4.17E-05 23 2.46% 133 1.46E-05 8 7.76% 419 4.62E-05 16 7.13% 385 4.25E-05 24 1.86% 101 1.11E-05 Total 5,400 8.B.i Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - On- and Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Mantelli Drive TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Leng th (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day TEXH_EB_MAN Mantelli Drive Eastbo und EB 2 315.1 0.20 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 TEXH_WB_MAN Mantelli Drive Westbo und WB 2 343.3 0.21 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 Total 10,800 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03451 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_EB _MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.15% 62 1.17E-04 9 7.11% 384 7.21E-04 17 7.39% 399 7.49E-04 2 0.42% 23 4.25E-05 10 4.39% 237 4.45E-04 18 8.17% 441 8.28E-04 3 0.41% 22 4.15E-05 11 4.67% 252 4.73E-04 19 5.70% 308 5.77E-04 4 0.27% 14 2.70E-05 12 5.89% 318 5.97E-04 20 4.27% 231 4.33E-04 5 0.50% 27 5.06E-05 13 6.15% 332 6.23E-04 21 3.26% 176 3.30E-04 6 0.91% 49 9.19E-05 14 6.03% 326 6.12E-04 22 3.30% 178 3.35E-04 7 3.79% 205 3.85E-04 15 7.01% 378 7.10E-04 23 2.46% 133 2.49E-04 8 7.76% 419 7.87E-04 16 7.13% 385 7.23E-04 24 1.86% 101 1.89E-04 Total 5,400 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_WB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.15% 62 1.27E-04 9 7.11% 384 7.85E-04 17 7.39% 399 8.16E-04 2 0.42% 23 4.63E-05 10 4.39% 237 4.85E-04 18 8.17% 441 9.02E-04 3 0.41% 22 4.52E-05 11 4.67% 252 5.15E-04 19 5.70% 308 6.29E-04 4 0.27% 14 2.95E-05 12 5.89% 318 6.51E-04 20 4.27% 231 4.72E-04 5 0.50% 27 5.51E-05 13 6.15% 332 6.79E-04 21 3.26% 176 3.60E-04 6 0.91% 49 1.00E-04 14 6.03% 326 6.66E-04 22 3.30% 178 3.64E-04 7 3.79% 205 4.19E-04 15 7.01% 378 7.74E-04 23 2.46% 133 2.71E-04 8 7.76% 419 8.57E-04 16 7.13% 385 7.88E-04 24 1.86% 101 2.06E-04 Total 5,400 8.B.i Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - On- and Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Mantelli Drive TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEVAP_EB_MAN Mantelli Drive East bound EB 2 315.1 0.20 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 TEVAP_WB_MAN Mantelli Drive Westbound WB 2 343.3 0.21 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 Total 10,800 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.41852 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.04053 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_EB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.15% 62 1.37E-04 9 7.11% 384 8.47E-04 17 7.39% 399 8.79E-04 2 0.42% 23 4.99E-05 10 4.39% 237 5.23E-04 18 8.17% 441 9.72E-04 3 0.41% 22 4.87E-05 11 4.67% 252 5.55E-04 19 5.70% 308 6.78E-04 4 0.27% 14 3.17E-05 12 5.89% 318 7.01E-04 20 4.27% 231 5.09E-04 5 0.50% 27 5.94E-05 13 6.15% 332 7.32E-04 21 3.26% 176 3.88E-04 6 0.91% 49 1.08E-04 14 6.03% 326 7.18E-04 22 3.30% 178 3.93E-04 7 3.79% 205 4.52E-04 15 7.01% 378 8.34E-04 23 2.46% 133 2.92E-04 8 7.76% 419 9.24E-04 16 7.13% 385 8.49E-04 24 1.86% 101 2.22E-04 Total 5,400 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_WB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.15% 62 1.49E-04 9 7.11% 384 9.22E-04 17 7.39% 399 9.58E-04 2 0.42% 23 5.43E-05 10 4.39% 237 5.70E-04 18 8.17% 441 1.06E-03 3 0.41% 22 5.30E-05 11 4.67% 252 6.05E-04 19 5.70% 308 7.39E-04 4 0.27% 14 3.46E-05 12 5.89% 318 7.64E-04 20 4.27% 231 5.54E-04 5 0.50% 27 6.48E-05 13 6.15% 332 7.97E-04 21 3.26% 176 4.23E-04 6 0.91% 49 1.18E-04 14 6.03% 326 7.82E-04 22 3.30% 178 4.28E-04 7 3.79% 205 4.92E-04 15 7.01% 378 9.09E-04 23 2.46% 133 3.19E-04 8 7.76% 419 1.01E-03 16 7.13% 385 9.25E-04 24 1.86% 101 2.42E-04 Total 5,400 8.B.i Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - On- and Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Mantelli Drive Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2022 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day FUG_EB_MAN Mantelli Drive Eastbo und EB 2 315.1 0.20 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 FUG_WB_MAN Mantelli Drive Westb ound WB 2 343.3 0.21 13.3 44 1.3 35 5,400 Total 10,800 Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5 Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00211 Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01681 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01487 Total Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03379 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_EB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.15% 62 1.14E-04 9 7.11% 384 7.06E-04 17 7.39% 399 7.33E-04 2 0.42% 23 4.16E-05 10 4.39% 237 4.36E-04 18 8.17% 441 8.11E-04 3 0.41% 22 4.06E-05 11 4.67% 252 4.63E-04 19 5.70% 308 5.65E-04 4 0.27% 14 2.65E-05 12 5.89% 318 5.85E-04 20 4.27% 231 4.24E-04 5 0.50% 27 4.96E-05 13 6.15% 332 6.10E-04 21 3.26% 176 3.23E-04 6 0.91% 49 8.99E-05 14 6.03% 326 5.99E-04 22 3.30% 178 3.28E-04 7 3.79% 205 3.77E-04 15 7.01% 378 6.95E-04 23 2.46% 133 2.44E-04 8 7.76% 419 7.70E-04 16 7.13% 385 7.08E-04 24 1.86% 101 1.85E-04 Total 5,400 2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_WB_MAN Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.15% 62 1.24E-04 9 7.11% 384 7.69E-04 17 7.39% 399 7.98E-04 2 0.42% 23 4.53E-05 10 4.39% 237 4.75E-04 18 8.17% 441 8.83E-04 3 0.41% 22 4.42E-05 11 4.67% 252 5.05E-04 19 5.70% 308 6.16E-04 4 0.27% 14 2.88E-05 12 5.89% 318 6.37E-04 20 4.27% 231 4.62E-04 5 0.50% 27 5.40E-05 13 6.15% 332 6.65E-04 21 3.26% 176 3.52E-04 6 0.91% 49 9.80E-05 14 6.03% 326 6.52E-04 22 3.30% 178 3.57E-04 7 3.79% 205 4.10E-04 15 7.01% 378 7.58E-04 23 2.46% 133 2.66E-04 8 7.76% 419 8.39E-04 16 7.13% 385 7.71E-04 24 1.86% 101 2.01E-04 Total 5,400 8.B.i Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Mantelli Drive Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptor (1.5 meter receptor he ight) Emission Year 2022 Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 1.5 meters Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI location Meteorological Conditions BAQMD San Martin Airport Met Data 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Winf Direction Variable Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.00012 0.00499 0.00586 Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.00515 0.00488 0.00027 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 8.B.i Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Mantelli Dirve Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 1.5 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1 CPF 1.10E+00 Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03 Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Expos ure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.002 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.020 0.005 0.0003 0.02 0.00002 0.005 0.01 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.020 0.005 0.0003 0.02 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 17 1 16-17 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0001 0.0050 0.0059 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.09 0.021 0.001 0.1 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2049 2050 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2029 2042 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2030 Maximum 2021 2021 2022 2023 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2025 2026 2027 2028 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information 2024 8.B.i Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Mantelli Drive Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations On-Site 1st Floor Residential Receptors (1.5 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2022 Receptor Information Maximum On-Site Receptor Number of Receptors 42 Receptor Height 1.5 meters Receptor Distances 20 meter grid spacing Meteorological Conditions BAQMD San Martin Airport Met Data 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Winf Direction Variable 1st Floor Project Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.00023 0.01012 0.01189 1st Floor Project PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.01045 0.0099 0.00055 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 8.B.i Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Cottages at Kern, Gilroy, CA - Mantelli Dirve Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at On-Site 1st Floor Residential Receptors - 1.5 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1 CPF 1.10E+00 Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03 Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Expos ure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.003 0.001 0.0001 0.00 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.038 0.009 0.0007 0.05 0.00005 0.01 0.01 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.038 0.009 0.0007 0.05 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.006 0.001 0.0001 0.01 17 1 16-17 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0002 0.0101 0.0119 0.001 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.17 0.043 0.003 0.2 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2025 2026 2027 2028 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information 2024 Maximum 2021 2021 2022 2023 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2029 2042 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2030 2049 2050 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 8.B.i Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.i Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.i Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Appendix C Biological Resources Assessments 8.B.i Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR KERN AND ST. CLAR PROJECT 9130 KERN AVENUE GILROY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: Coast Ridge Ecology 1410 31st Avenue San Francisco, CA 94122 February 2021 8.B.i Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................1 A. CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG, CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER, AND AMERICAN BADGER .................... 2 B. NESTING BIRDS ........................................................................................................................... 2 C. WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................. 2 II. PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................3 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................3 IV. METHODS ..........................................................................................................................3 V. EXISTING SETTING ...............................................................................................................3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 4 VI. PLANT COMMUNITIES, HABITAT TYPES, AND WILDLIFE .......................................................8 VEGETATION................................................................................................................................... 8 WILDLIFE ....................................................................................................................................... 9 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ................................................................................................... 10 VII. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES ................................. 11 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG (RANA DRAYTONII) ............................................................................. 12 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER (AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE) ............................................................ 12 SPECIAL STATUS MAMMALS ............................................................................................................ 13 SPECIAL STATUS BIRDS ................................................................................................................... 13 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 13 VIII. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 14 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................... 14 FEDERAL AND STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS ................................................................................ 14 SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN ......................................................................................................... 15 SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN ................................................................................................ 15 NESTING BIRDS INCLUDING RAPTORS ................................................................................................ 16 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY AND CEQA ................................................................................. 16 REGULATED WATERS ..................................................................................................................... 17 STORMWATER CONTROL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 17 CITY OF GILROY CODE OF ORDINANCES ............................................................................................. 17 Tree Protection ..................................................................................................................... 17 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 A. CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG, CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER, AND AMERICAN BADGER .................. 18 B. NESTING BIRDS ......................................................................................................................... 18 C. WETLANDS ............................................................................................................................... 18 X. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 19 8.B.i Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Map……………………………………...…………………………………………….…..5 Figure 2. CNDDB Occurrence Map (3 mile radius) ……………………………………………………......…6 Figure 3. Tree and Wetland Location Map……..………………………....……………………………….…...7 APPENDICES Appendix A. Special Status Species Table……………………………………………………..…………………21 Appendix B. Representative Photos of the Site………………………………………….…………………..37 8.B.i Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 1 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM I. SUMMARY This report provides a biological resource assessment for the Kern and St. Clar Project, a housing development project located at 9130 Kern Avenue within the city limits of Gilroy, California. The property is located approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of Kern Avenue and St. Clar Avenue (Figure 1). The project consists of the construction of 29 single-family detached homes. The project site is bounded by Kern Avenue to the west, residences to the north and east, and farmland to the south. The General Plan designation for the proposed project is Medium Density Residential (8 to 16 dwelling units per acre), and the designated zoning district is R3. The project would develop 29 single-family residential units on a 3.57-acre site. The project includes approximately 5,400 square feet of park and a C3 bioretention basin, and three surface parking spaces located adjacent to the park area. The project will also involve curb and travel lane improvements for the portion of Kern Avenue that is adjacent to the project site. Access to the project site would be provided via a new residential street extending east from Kern Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of Tatum Avenue. All trees on site are proposed for removal. Coast Ridge Ecology biologists Patrick Kobernus and Logic McDaniel surveyed the site and surrounding areas for biological resources on January 25, 2021. All plant and animal species observed were documented and plant communities and habitats were assessed for their potential to support special status species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was consulted for known occurrences of sensitive plant, animal, and natural plant communities of concern found within the Gilroy and eight surrounding 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles (CNDDB, 2021). The primary plant community located within the project impact area is nonnative wild oat and annual brome grasslands (Alliance: Avena spp. – Bromus spp.) (CNPS, 2021). This plant community is primarily dominated by nonnative annual grasses including Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) and wild oat (Avena spp.), as well as nonnative forbs such as summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). A few other non-natives are found throughout the site, including yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). A cluster of mature tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is present on the southern edge of the site, as well as several saplings which are spreading into the grassland. The northwest corner is lined with a few coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Bailey acacia (Acacia baileyana) trees. No rare plants or sensitive plant communities were observed and none are expected to have potential to occur on site. There is a low potential for special status birds including raptors to nest on or near the site due to the lack of suitable nest trees. Suitable burrows for California tiger salamander, American badger and western burrowing owl are also absent from the site. Common bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act may nest within the trees and/or grassland on the property. Nine special-status wildlife species have a low potential for occurrence. This includes two listed amphibians, six special status birds, and one special status mammal. These are: California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), FT, SSC 1 California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), FT, ST 1 SSC=California Species of Special Concern, FP=California Fully-Protected Species, FT=Federally Threatened, ST=State Threatened 8.B.i Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 2 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), FP White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), FP Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), SSC Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), SSC Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), SSC Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), SSC American badger (Taxidea taxus), SSC The project is located within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Area (VHP), and an application for take coverage of special status species covered under the Plan has been prepared for the project (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2020)2. Take coverage for special status species covered under the VHP would be obtained for the property through participation in the VHP. All listed species determined in this report to have a low potential for occurrence are covered under the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The following recommendations are provided to avoid or minimize any impacts to biological resources on the site. A. California Red-Legged Frog, California tiger salamander, and American Badger California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and American badger have a low potential for occurrence within the project area. A pre-construction survey conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbance is recommended in order to minimize any impacts to these special status species. Based on USFWS and/or CDFW requirements for similar projects, additional minimization and avoidance measures could include installation and monitoring of exclusionary fencing, an education training for all contractors working on site, and on-site monitoring by a qualified biologist or trained biological monitor. B. Nesting Birds Potential bird nesting habitat exists on the project site. If the project is conducted during the nesting bird season, between February 1st and August 31st, a preconstruction nesting bird survey is recommended. If active bird nests are detected, a suitable nest buffer should be installed (typically between 50 to 250 feet, depending on species). If project activities occur outside of the nesting bird season, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds are not necessary. C. Wetlands Based on the VHP application prepared by H.T. Harvey and Associates, permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands (0.044 acres) will occur from grading of the site for project construction. Permanent impacts to 3.6 acres of California annual grassland will result from grading and construction of the residential development, internal roads, and landscaping. No temporary impacts will occur as a result of the project (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2020). Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers and California Regional Water Quality Control Board would need to be obtained to fill the seasonal wetland on site. 2 Kern and St. Clar Project, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application for Private Projects Supplemental Attachment (Project # 4447 -02, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, September 2020. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 3 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM II. PROJECT LOCATION The project area is located in an approximately 3.57-acre parcel (APN 790-17-002 and 790-17-003) in Gilroy, California. The site is an undeveloped and currently vacant, relatively level parcel with limited low-lying ground vegetation. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of 29 single-family detached homes. The project site is bounded by Kern Avenue to the west, residences to the north and east, and farmland to the south. The General Plan designation for the proposed project is Medium Density Residential (8 to 16 dwelling units per acre), and the designated zoning district is R3. The project would develop 29 single-family residential units on a 3.57-acre site. The project includes approximately 5,400 square feet of park and a C3 bioretention basin, and 3 surface parking spaces located adjacent to the park area. The project will also involve curb and travel lane improvements for the portion of Kern Avenue that is adjacent to the project site. Access to the project site would be provided via a new residential street extending east from Kern Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of Tatum Avenue. All trees on site are proposed for removal. IV. METHODS Coast Ridge Ecology biologists Patrick Kobernus and Logic McDaniel surveyed the site and surrounding areas for biological resources on January 25, 2021. Weather at the time of the surveys was cool with air temperature in the 50’s (F), with a gentle breeze and partly cloudy skies. All plant and animal species observed were documented and plant communities and habitats were assessed for their potential to support special status species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was consulted for known occurrences of sensitive plant, animal, and natural plant communities of concern found within the Gilroy and eight surrounding 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles (CNDDB, 2021). Data from CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) On-Line Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2021), and other relevant literature and databases, knowledge of regional biota, and observations made during the field survey, were used to evaluate on-site habitat suitability for special status plant and wildlife species within the property. V. EXISTING SETTING The project site is located on a vacant parcel of land just north of the intersection of Kern Avenue and St. Clar Avenue in Gilroy, California. The surrounding area consists of single family residential properties to the north and east, and farmland to the south. The topography of the project site is mostly flat with a small hillock in the center of the parcel. A seasonal wetland is present in the narrow swale bisecting the center of the property. A twelve-inch wide culvert runs down the length of the west side of the property along Kern Avenue. Elevation of the project site is approximately 208 feet. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 4 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Soils There are three soil types present within the project area: San Ysidro loam, Clear Lake clay, and Pleasanton gravelly loam. San Ysidro loam is a moderately well-drained soil made up of clayey alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. Clear Lake clay is a poorly-drained soil made up of clayey alluvium derived from metamorphic and sedimentary rock. Pleasanton gravelly loam is a well-drained soil made up of alluvium (NRCS, 2021). There are no serpentine, calcareous, dune or wetland soils on the property that could support rare plant species that are specific to these soil types. Hydrology A seasonal wetland is present within a narrow, shallow swale (0.044 acre) bisecting the center of the property. This swale is approximately 3 feet wide, and 1 foot deep, and is dominated by grassland vegetation. A twelve-inch wide culvert runs down the length of the west side of the property along Kern Avenue. This culvert transports roadside runoff. There are no ponds or permanent wetlands at the site or in the surrounding areas. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 5 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM 8.B.i Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 6 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM 8.B.i Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 7 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Additional trees shown on Figure are the invasive Tree of Heaven. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 8 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM VI. PLANT COMMUNITIES, HABITAT TYPES, AND WILDLIFE Vegetation One plant community is located within the project impact area: wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Alliance: Avena spp. – Bromus spp.) (CNPS, 2021). This plant community is primarily dominated by non-native grasses including Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) and wild oat (Avena spp.), as well as non-native forbs such as summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Several other non-native plant species are found throughout the site, including yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). A cluster of mature tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is present on the southern edge of the site, as well as several saplings which are spreading into the grassland. The northwest corner of the site is lined with a few coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Bailey acacia (Acacia baileyana). There is a small seasonal wetland on the site that occurs in the narrow swale bisecting the center of the property. The vegetation in the swale is dominated by Italian rye grass and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum murinum). Other common species in this area include common vetch (Vicia sativa), wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and wild chicory (Cichorium intybus). A list of all plant species observed within the survey area is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Plant Species Observed During Biological Survey Common Name Scientific Name Native? Bailey acacia Acacia baileyana N Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima N Wild oat Avena spp. N Wild chicory Cichorium intybus* N Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis Y Yellow star thistle Centaurea solstitialis N Annual fireweed Epilobium brachycarpum Y California poppy Eschscholzia californica Y Italian rye grass Festuca perennis N Crane's bill geranium Geranium molle N Short podded mustard Hirschfeldia incana N Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum* N Iris sp. Iris sp. N Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola N Cheeseweed mallow Malva parvifora N Harding grass Phalaria aquatica N Ribwort Plantago lanceolata N Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y Valley oak Quercus lobata Y Wild radish Raphanus sativus N 8.B.i Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 9 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Native? Curly dock Rumex crispus N Black nightshade Solanum nigrum N Common vetch Vicia sativa* N Hairy vetch Vicia villosa* N Bigleaf periwinkle Vinca major N *Denotes additional plant species that occur at the project sit e that were not identifiable during the site survey on 1/25. These species were identified in a previous report by H.T. Harvey & Associates (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2020). Wildlife While the predominantly non-native annual grassland provides some foraging and dispersal habitat, its use is limited due to the extent of agricultural disturbance and surrounding suburban and urban land use. The lack of cover on site as well as a lack of animal burrows limits the potential for nesting and refuge. Very minimal burrowing rodent activity (Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)) was evident at the site on the small hillock. Very little terrestrial wildlife was detected during the site survey, however Sierran treefrogs (Pseudacris sierra) were heard vocalizing near a small culvert that extends the length of Kern Avenue however no water was present at the time of survey. The open grassland and occasional large trees provide good foraging and potentially nesting habitat for native bird species. Several species of birds, including grassland specialists such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), were observed during the site survey and are listed in Table 2. Some bats may forage over the grassland, but there is a lack of suitable roosting habitat on site. Larger mammals such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) may also use the project area as a foraging site. Table 2: Wildlife Species Observed During Biological Survey Common Name Scientific Name Amphibians Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra Birds Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Rock pigeon Columba livia American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus House finch Haemorhous mexicanus House sparrow Passer domesticus Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata 8.B.i Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 10 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Mammals Mule deer (scat) Odocoileus hemionus Botta’s pocket gopher (burrows) Thomomys bottae Wildlife Movement Corridors Wildlife movement corridors are important for wildlife that have large home range sizes, or require multiple habitat types for different parts of their life cycle (i.e. breeding, rearing, feeding, dispersal, and hibernation/aestivation) within a given region. Habitat linkages or corridors facilitate movement within discrete areas as well as movement in-between larger meta- populations in the region. Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e. usually one direction per season), inter-population movement (i.e. long-term genetic exchange) and small travel pathways (i.e. daily movement within an animal’s home range). The project area is unlikely to provide a movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife due to the surrounding residential development, as well as the lack of wildlife sign observed during the site survey. While the proposed development project would create a barrier to wildlife movement, the lack of suitable breeding, foraging, or other habitat in the project area suggests this would have a generally low impact on local species 8.B.i Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 11 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM VII. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintains records of reported occurrences of sensitive plant, animal and natural plant communities of concern. CNDDB records provide useful information about what species have been found in a given project area, and what species may be expected in similar habitat types. An area that has not been surveyed or visited may support sensitive species that have not been discovered and reported, and may require site-specific surveys to rule out special status species occurrences. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Sacramento, also maintains lists of listed species and other species of concern that may occur in or be affected by projects in a given USGS topographic quadrangle. Information on special status plant species was obtained from the CNPS On-line Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. The CNDDB records for the Gilroy 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles were reviewed for sensitive element occurrences at the project site (CNDDB, 2021). The potential for the presence of each of these special status species is provided in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the location of the recorded occurrences of special status species within a three mile radius of the property. Other special status species that were evaluated for potential for occurrence based on proximity to the site, or habitat utilization were included in Appendix A. Some special status species found exclusively within serpentine habitats, salt marsh habitat, coastal habitats including cliffs, lagoons and estuaries, and/or marine habitats were excluded from analysis due to the lack of these habitats on or adjacent to the property. Special status species that have a higher probability for occurrence onsite based on habitat types and/or recorded observations within three miles of the property are discussed in greater detail below. There is a low potential for special status birds, including raptors, to nest on or near the site due to the lack of suitable nest trees. Suitable burrows for California tiger salamander, American badger and western burrowing owl are also absent from the site. Common bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act may nest within the trees and/or grassland on the property. Nine special-status wildlife species have a low potential for occurrence. This includes two listed amphibians, six special status birds, and one special status mammal. These are: California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), FT, SSC 3 California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), FT, ST Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), FP White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), FP Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), SSC Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), SSC Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), SSC Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), SSC American badger (Taxidea taxus), SSC 3 SSC=California Species of Special Concern, FP=California Fully-Protected Species, FT=Federally Threatened, ST=State Threatened 8.B.i Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 12 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) The California red-legged frog (CRF) is a federally listed Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. California red-legged frogs are known to occur in slow-flowing streams, and marshes with heavily vegetated shores for breeding as well as grasslands, riparian woodland, oak woodland, and coniferous forests. Seasonal bodies of water are frequently occupied by red-legged frogs, and in some areas these may be critical for persistence. California red-legged frogs are known to sometimes disperse widely during autumn, winter, and spring rains. Juveniles use the wet periods to expand outward from their pond of origin and adults may move between aquatic areas. Frogs disperse through many types of upland vegetation and use a broader range of habitats outside of breeding season. CRF have been observed to mov e extensively and travel up to two miles or more between breeding ponds without apparent regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (Bulger in litt.1998, in USFWS, 2002). CRF typically require a permanent water source with a minimum depth of 0.7 meters (2.5 feet) (USFWS, 2004). The nearest California red-legged frog detection is located within a pond approximately 2 miles west of the project area (CNDDB, 2021). There is extensive suburban development between this location and the project site that would likely be an impassable barrier for this species. The seasonal wetland within the project area would not provide suitable breeding habitat for this species. There is a low potential for presence of this species on site due to a lack of suitable breeding ponds in the area and lack of recorded occurrences of the species in the watershed (CNDDB 2021). California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) California tiger salamanders inhabit valley and foothill grasslands and the grassy understory of open woodlands, usually within one mile of water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). California tiger salamanders require two major habitat components: aquatic breeding sites such as ponds and vernal pools, and terrestrial aestivation or refuge sites (grasslands). California tiger salamanders will also less commonly inhabit oak woodland habitat (USFWS 2003), residing under leaf litter and logs or small mammal burrows, if present. The California tiger salamander is terrestrial as an adult and spends most of its time underground, primarily inhabiting ground squirrel burrows and occasionally occupying human-made underground structures. California tiger salamanders emerge during the rainy season to breed, laying their eggs primarily in vernal pools and other ephemeral ponds that fill in the winter and are often dry by summer (Loredo et al. 1996). They sometimes use permanent human-made ponds (e.g., stockponds), reservoirs, and small lakes, although they are much less likely to survive and reproduce in water bodies that support introduced fishes (Stebbins 1972; Zeiner et al. 1988). Adult salamanders migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events of fall and early winter (typically at night) and return to upland habitats after breeding in the early spring. California tiger salamanders have an approximately 10 to 20 week-long developmental period (from egg to terrestrial form) and ponds must last into the early or late summer for the species to complete their development. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 13 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM One record of California tiger salamander is recorded 2.8 miles south of the project area (CNDDB 2021). Extensive urbanization is located between this sighting and the project site that would likely be an impassable barrier for this species. Special Status Mammals American Badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of Special Concern that occurs in grasslands and dry openings in shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils. No burrows for this species were found on the property however this species may forage in the area and has been detected within 1 mile of the site (CNDDB, 2021). Three special status bat species have been documented to occur within a 3-mile radius of the site: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). The project area consists of an open grassland with limited foraging habitat, no structures and very few trees. The trees on site lack necessary cavities or crevices that would provide suitable roosting habitat for bats. As such, no suitable bat roosting habitat is present within the project area. Special Status Birds Six special status bird species that occur within grassland habitats have a low potential of occurrence due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat at the site (Appendix A). No special status birds were observed within the project area during the site survey in January 2021. Special Status Plants and Plant Communities Within the Gilroy region, there are several special status plants on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plant Species. Most of these plants are associated with distinct or specialized habitat types: coastal prairie, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forests, cismontane woodland, wetlands, sandy or serpentine soils, and streams and lakes. Most of these habitat types, soil associations or elevation requirements do not occur on the property. None of the rare plant species on the CNPS Inventory were observed during the site visit, and none were identified as having potential for occurrence at the project site. No sensitive plant communities were identified on site during the field survey. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 14 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM VIII. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Federal and state-listed species (endangered, threatened, and fully-protected) receive various levels of legal protection under the federal and state endangered species acts and the California Fish and Wildlife Code. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Section 3500 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code protect active nests of migratory and other birds, and provide criminal penalties for take of hawks, owls, and take or disturbance of all bird nests or eggs. Potential impacts to other special status or otherwise sensitive species must be disclosed and evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Wetlands To meet the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) definition of wetland, an area must demonstrate three critical characteristics: wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, and wetland soils (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Additionally, to fall under jurisdiction of the USACE, a wetland must have some evident hydrological connection to other wetlands and/or waters of the United States. The US Fish and Wildlife Service definition of wetland is similar: at least periodically, the land must support predominantly hydrophytes; the substrate must be predominantly undrained hydric soil; or the substrate is non-soil that is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of the year (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Based on the VHP application prepared by H.T. Harvey and Associates, permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands (0.044 acres) will occur from grading of the site for project construction. No temporary impacts will occur as a result of the project (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2020). All applicable permits from federal, state and local regulations shall be obtained for project impacts to seasonal wetlands. Federal and State Endangered Species Acts The United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), and CEQA afford protection to species of concern included on state- maintained lists. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has statutory responsibility for the protection of state listed species, and is a trustee agency under CEQA. Both the federal and state endangered species acts provide protection for listed species. In particular, the federal act prohibits "take". "Take" is defined by the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a federally listed, endangered species of wildlife, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Take not specifically allowed by federal permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA is subject to enforcement through civil or criminal proceedings under Section 9 of the ESA. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 15 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM While "take" is easily understood in the sense of deliberately capturing or killing individual animals, federal regulations also define take to include the incidental destruction of animals in the course of an otherwise lawful activity, such as habitat loss due to development. Under those rules the definition of take includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR Section 17.3). Section 10(a) of the ESA permits the incidental take of an endangered or threatened species. Similarly, Section 2081 of the CDFW Code or use of the CESA allows the Department to enter into management agreements that make lawful activities which may otherwise result in habitat loss or take of individuals of a state listed species. The project site is not located within USFWS designated Critical Habitat (CH)4. The closest Critical Habitat to the site is 2.0 miles northwest (California tiger salamander) and 3.4 miles northwest (Bay Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha bayensis). Species of Special Concern The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated certain animal species as “Species of Special Concern” due to concerns about declining population levels, limited ranges, and continuing threats that have made these species vulnerable to extinction. The goal of this designation is to bring attention to these species in the hope that their population decline will be halted through mitigation or project redesign to avoid impact. Species of special concern are protected only through environmental review of projects under CEQA. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a trustee agency and is solicited for its comments during the CEQA process. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan provides a streamlined approach for requesting and receiving endangered species permits for development and conservation projects. It concerns 18 wildlife and plant species, or covered species. Take coverage for special status species covered under the SCV Habitat Plan are obtained through participation in the SCV Habitat Plan. The project is located within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Area, and a permit application has been prepared for the project (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2020)5. Permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands will occur from native soil fill used to grade the site for construction of a residential housing development. Permanent impacts will measure 0.044 acres, and the 142 cubic yards of native soil fill will completely fill the wetlands. Permanent impacts to California annual grassland will result from grading and construction of the residential development., internal roads, and landscaping. No temporary impacts will occur as a result of the project (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2020). 4 USFWS Critical Habitat, online mapper, accessed 02/20/2021. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77 5 Kern and St. Clar Project, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application for Private Projects Supplemental Attachment (Project # 4447 -02, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, September 2020. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 16 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM The project parcels are within areas mapped by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Geobrowser as Land Cover Fee Zone B. The proposed project is subject to the fees related to impacts occurring in Fee Zone B on non-urban-suburban land cover types and wetland and nitrogen deposition fees (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2020). SCVHP Covered Species Invertebrates Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Amphibians & Reptiles California Tiger Salamander California Red-legged Frog Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Western Pond Turtle Birds Western Burrowing Owl Least Bell’s Vireo Tricolored Blackbird Mammals San Joaquin Kit Fox Plants Tiburon Indian Paintbrush Coyote Ceanothus Mount Hamilton Thistle Santa Clara Valley Dudleya Fragrant Fritillary Loma Prieta Hoita Smooth Lessingia Metcalf Canyon Jewelflower Most Beautiful Jewelflower Nesting Birds Including Raptors Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” Passerines and non-passerine landbirds are further protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As such, the CDFW typically recommends avoidance of the nesting bird season, or pre- construction surveys for nesting birds prior to any impact to habitat (actual removal of trees/vegetation or impact through noise from construction-related activities). Active nests may require suitable protection buffer zones and/or monitoring as determined by CDFW. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides specific protection of the bald eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S. Code. 668(a)). California Native Plant Society and CEQA The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed a rating system for the state’s rare, threatened and endangered plants. Plants rated by CNPS are subject to protection under CEQA, and may also be protected by state and federal endangered species laws if they are listed by the state or federal government. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 17 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Regulated Waters Impacts to stream channels (bed and bank) are regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game Code §§1600 et seq., and may require a DFG Streambed Alteration Agreement. Impacts to wetlands and streams may also fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act §404 permit process and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) enforces permit provisions of the Clean Water Act regulating dredge and fill operations. The USACE also exerts jurisdiction over "waters of the U.S." which include territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters in addition to wetlands and drainages that support wetland vegetation, exhibit ponding or scouring, show obvious signs of channeling, or have discernible banks and high water marks. The State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) enforces permit provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that may potentially impact wetlands in the state of California require a 401 Certification permit. Each 401 Certification is decided on a case-by-case basis, and is guided by the applicable requirements of the CWA, Porter-Cologne and the regulations. Stormwater Control Requirements In urbanized areas, stormwater runoff is the largest source of pollution to waters in creeks, ponds and lakes. Pollution caused by stormwater runoff can be controlled through obtaining and complying with a municipal stormwater permit from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Controls set forth in the permit offer an opportunity for development and redevelopment projects to reduce impacts to water quality. City of Gilroy Code of Ordinances Tree Protection Gilroy City Code Section 30.38.270 specifies that removal of protected trees, heritage trees, or greater than 25% of the trees within the outermost dripline of a Community of Protected Trees may only be performed after securing a tree removal permit. The application must include a submittal of a report prepared by a certified arborist. Any tree approved for removal under this section shall be replaced. Protected Trees, Heritage Trees, and Communities of Protected Trees are defined as follows: • Protected Tree. Any indigenous tree characterized by having a single trunk of thirty-eight inches (38”) in circumference or more at a point four and one half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground. Nonindigenous tree species and orchards (including individual fruit and nut trees) are exempt from this definition for the purpose of this section. • Heritage Tree. A tree of any species with a single trunk of 90 inches in circumference or more at a point four and one half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground or with multiple trunks, two of which collectively measure 72 inches in circumference or more at a point four and one half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 18 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM • Community of Protected Trees. Any grouping of Protected Trees which are ecologically or aesthetically related to each other such that the loss of several of them would cause a protected ecological, aesthetic or environmental impact in the immediate area, as determined by a certified arborist. In sections (d), (e), (g), and (h) of this ordinance, the term “tree” shall refer to each and every tree in the Community of Protected Trees that is proposed for removal. Thirteen (13) native Coast live and Valley oak trees may need to be removed as part of the project, in addition to two non-native Bailey acacia trees. Based on the arborist report prepared for the site, the site does not have any trees that meet the City of Gilroy’s criteria for protection.6 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS A. California Red-Legged Frog, California tiger salamander, and American Badger The California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and American badger have low potential for occurrence within the project area. A pre-construction survey conducted by a qualified biologist immediately prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbance is recommended in order to minimize any impacts to these special status species. Based on USFWS and/or CDFW requirements for similar projects, additional minimization and avoidance measures could include installation and monitoring of exclusionary fencing, an education training for all contractors working on site, and on-site monitoring by a qualified biologist or trained biological monitor. B. Nesting Birds Potential bird nesting habitat exists on the project site. If the project is conducted during the nesting bird season, between February 1st and August 31st, a preconstruction nesting bird survey is recommended. If active bird nests are detected, a suitable nest buffer should be installed (typically between 50 to 250 feet, depending on species). If project activities occur outside of the nesting bird season, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds are not necessary. C. Wetlands Based on the VHP application prepared by H.T. Harvey and Associates, permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands (0.044 acres) will occur from grading of the site for project construction. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers and California Regional Water Quality Control Board would need to be obtained to fill the seasonal wetland on site. 6 (Letter from A-Plus Tree, Inc. for the Gilroy Project (9130 and 9160 Kern Ave), dated: October 21, 2020 8.B.i Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 19 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM X. REFERENCES Bulger, J. 1998. Wet season dispersal and habitat use by juvenile California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in forest and rangeland habitats of the Santa Cruz Mountains. A research proposal submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. Calflora. 2021. Website accessed February, 2021. (various species) https://www.calflora.org/ California Herps. 2019. Website accessed January, 2021. (various species). http://www.californiaherps.com California Native Plant Society. 2021. The Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (8th Edition), 2021. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed February, 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife, nine quadrangle query: January 2021. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2020. Kern and St. Clar Project Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application for Private Projects Supplemental Attachement. Project #4447-02. Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetological Review 32(1):94-103. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game. Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2021. Jepson eFlora, https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/, accessed on February 10, 2021. Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior of the California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology. 30:282-285. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey for Santa Clara County. Website accessed February 2, 2021. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 8.B.i Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 20 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Shaffer, H.B., R.N. Fisher, and S.E. Stanley. 1993. Status report: the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, under Contracts (FG 9422 and FG 1383). USFWS. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland OR. USFWS. 2004. Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); Proposed Rule. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 69. No. 71: pp. 19620 – 19642. Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White. 1990. California's wildlife, Volume I: amphibians and reptiles; Volume II: birds; and Volume III: mammals. California Statewide Habitat Relationships Program, CDFG, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 21 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM APPENDIX A: Special Status Species Table Special status plant and animal species that were considered for their potential to occur in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Amphibians and Reptiles California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT/CT/-- G2G3 S2S3 Found in cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, riparian woodland, valley & foothill grassland, vernal pools, and wetlands. Needs underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. Low potential Small gopher burrows unlikely to provide suitable refuge. Seasonal wetland on site not suitable for breeding and no nearby ponds. Santa Cruz black salamander Aneides niger --/--/-- G3 S3 SSC This entirely terrestrial salamander inhabits areas in mixed deciduous woodlands, coniferous forests, and coastal grasslands where it can be found under rocks near streams, in talus, under damp logs, and other refugia. No potential Suitable habitat not present. California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus --/--/-- G3 S2S3 SSC Known from wet coastal forests near streams and seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey County, and east to Napa County. Aquatic larvae found in cold, clear streams, occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known from wet forests under rocks and logs near streams and lakes. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 22 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/CE/-- G3 S3 SSC Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Frequents shallow, slow, gravelly streams and rivers with sunny banks. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying and at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. No potential Site too open and dry with no streams or rocky substrate. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT/--/-- G2G3 S2S3 SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. Low potential No permanent wetlands exist nearby. Species is unlikely to cross through project site when moving between breeding habitats. Western pond turtle Emys marmorata --/--/-- G3G4 S3 SSC USFS:S Ponds, creeks in woodland, grassland. Species requires deep water ponds, streams, or marshes with sunny, emergent basking sites and sunny upland habitat for nesting. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii --/--/-- G3G4 S3S4 SSC Inhabits open areas of sandy soil and low vegetation in valleys, foothills and semiarid mountains. Found in grasslands, coniferous forests, woodlands, and chaparral, with open areas and patches of loose soil. Often found in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered shrubs and along dirt roads. Often found near ant hills feeding on ants. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 23 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Birds Tricolored blackbird (nesting colony) Agelaius tricolor --/CT/-- G2G3 S1S2 SSC BCC NABCI:RWL Highly colonial species, most numerous in central valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony. No potential Nesting substrate not present. Grasshopper sparrow (nesting) Ammodramus savannarum --/--/-- G5 S3 SSC Moderately open grasslands and prairies with patchy bare ground, cultivated fields and forest clearings with short to moderately tall grasses and scattered shrubs. In the west it prefers more open sites with bare ground and shorter vegetation than savannah sparrows. Low potential Site may provide minimal foraging habitat, but generally lacks ample open grassland and scattered shrubs. Golden eagle (nesting and wintering) Aquila chrysaetos --/FP/-- G5 S3 SSC BCC Nests on cliffs and in large trees in open areas. Forages in open terrain including grasslands, deserts, savannahs and early successional stages of forest and shrub habitats. Low potential Site has limited foraging potential but lacks nesting habitat. Great blue heron (nesting colony) Ardea herodias --/--/-- G5 S4 Inhabits a variety of aquatic habitats including shores, tideflats, marshes, swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams, irrigation ditches, irrigated croplands and pastures. Nests colonially in large trees near water bodies. Low potential Possible foraging habitat present but site lacks trees large enough to support nesting. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 24 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Burrowing owl (burrow sites & some wintering sites) Athene cunicularia --/--/-- G4 S3 SSC BCC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Low potential Larger burrows typically used by this species, such as those made by ground squirrels, were not present at this site. Only small gopher burrows present. Swainson's hawk (nesting) Buteo swainsoni --/CT/-- G5 S3 BCC Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations. No potential Site lacks suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Northern harrier (nesting) Circus hudsonius --/--/-- G5 S3 SSC Frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands; seldom found in wooded areas. Feeds mostly on voles and other small mammals, birds, frogs, small reptiles, crustaceans, insects, and, rarely on fish. Mostly found in flat, or hummocky, open areas of tall, dense grasses, moist or dry shrubs, and edges for nesting, cover, and feeding No potential Lack of suitable foraging and nesting habitat. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 25 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area White-tailed kite (nesting) Elanus leucurus --/FP/-- G5 S3S4 Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching Low potential Site provides suitable open foraging habitat but does not provide suitable nesting habitat. Yellow-breasted chat (nesting) Icteria virens --/--/-- G5 S3 SSC Inhabits riparian thickets, pond margins, marshes, hedgerows, old pastures and edge habitats in forests especially regenerating burned and logged areas. Distributed throughout northern California and the Central Valley. Nests in dense shrubs up to eight feet in height. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Loggerhead shrike (nesting) Lanius ludovicianus --/SSC/-- G4 S4 SSC BCC Inhabits a variety of habitats from open grasslands and scrub to woodlands and riparian areas. Species typically uses fenceposts, shrubs and small trees for perching while foraging in open habitats. Year- round resident of California. Low potential Site provides suitable open foraging habitat but does not provide suitable nesting habitat. Bank swallow (nesting) Riparia riparia --/CT/-- G5 S2 Requires vertical banks and cliffs with fine-textured or sandy soils near streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, and the ocean for nesting. Feeds primarily over grassland, shrubland, savannah, and open riparian areas during breeding season and over grassland, brushland, wetlands, and cropland during migration. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 26 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE/CE/-- G5T2 S2 NABCI:YWL Breeds in dense shrubs, riparian thickets, woodland edges, and hedgerows. No potential No suitable roosting or foraging habitat. Fish Monterey hitch Lavinia exilicauda harengus --/--/-- G4T2T4 S2S4 SSC Widely distributed in the Pajaro and Salinas river systems, both tributary to Monterey Bay. Occupies a wide variety of habitats, although they are most abundant in lowland areas with large pools / reservoirs.7 No potential Suitable habitat not present. Monterey roach Lavinia symmetricus subditus --/SSC/-- G4T2T3 S2S3 SSC Generally found in small streams and intermittent watercourses; dense populations frequently observed in isolated pools. Intolerant of saline waters. Confined to tributaries of Monterey Bay. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Steelhead (South- Central California Coast DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9 FE/--/-- G5T2Q S2 AFS:TH Naturally spawned anadromous steelhead originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Pajaro River to (but not including) the Santa Maria River. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Steelhead (Central California Coast DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 FT/--/-- G5T2T3Q S2S3 AFS:TH Occurs in coastal streams including drainages of San Francisco. From Russian River, South to Soquel Creek and to, but not including, Pajaro River; also San Francisco and San Pablo Bay Basins. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 7 Moyle, P.B., R. M. Quiñones, J. V. Katz and J. Weaver. 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. www.wildlife.ca.gov 8.B.i Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 27 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus --/SSC/-- G5 S3 SSC USFS:S WBWG:H Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. No potential Site lacks rocky roosting habitat. Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii --/--/-- G3G4 S2 SSC USFS:S WBWG:H Found throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance. No potential Suitable roosting habitat not present. Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus --/*/-- G5 S4 WBWG:M Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water. No potential Suitable roosting or foraging habitat not present. San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens --/--/-- G5T2T3 S2S3 SSC Inhabits chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodland, and riparian woodland in the San Francisco Bay Area. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Cruz kangaroo rat Dipodomys venustus venustus --/--/-- G4T1 S1 Inhabits open sandy areas and dense chaparral. Historically ranged from Belmont south to Corralitos in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 28 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area American badger Taxidea taxus --/--/-- G5 S3 SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows. Low potential Suitable foraging habitat present but no burrows identified on site. San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE/CT/-- G4T2 S2 Occupies habitats with open or low vegetation with loose soils. In the northern portion of their range, they occupy grazed grasslands and to a lesser extent valley oak woodlands. Grazed grasslands including areas adjacent to tilled or fallow fields, and suburban settings. Uses dens excavated by other animals, and human made structures (culverts). No potential Species has not been detected in area in several decades. Invertebrates Smith's blue butterfly (overwintering population) Euphilotes enoptes smithi FE/--/-- G5T1T2 S1 Occurs in scattered populations in association with coastal dune, coastal scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats. They spend their entire lives in association with two buckwheat plants in the genus Eriogonum. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 29 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis FT/--/-- G5T1 S1 Exists on shallow, serpentine- derived soils, which support the plants on which the caterpillars feed. Primary habitat is native grassland on large serpentine outcroppings; secondary habitat consists of “islands” in such grasslands on smaller outcrops, while tertiary habitat is on non-serpentine soils with similarities to serpentine soils. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Opler’s longhorn moth Adela oplerella --/--/-- G2 S2 Habitat consists of serpentine bunchgrass, dominated by Nassela pulchra and other native grasses, with some chaparral, oak woodland, seeps, and rocky outcrops. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Obscure bumble bee Bombus caliginosus --/--/-- G4? S1S2 Coastal areas from Santa Barbara county north to Washington state. Grassy coastal prairies and meadows. Nectar and pollen plants include: Ceanothus, Cirsium, Clarkia, Keckiella, Lathyrus, Lotus, Lupinus, Rhododendron, Rubus, Trifolium, and Vaccinium. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii --/CE/-- G2 S1S2 Inhabits open grasslands and scrub habitats. Requires food plants Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Erigonium. No potential Species is restricted to a very limited climatic range. No observations in the surrounding area. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 30 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis --/CE/-- G2G3 S1 USFS:S Open grassy areas, urban parks and gardens, chaparral and shrub areas, and mountain meadows. Host plants include Ceanothus, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Cirsium, Geranium, Grindellia, Lupinus, Melilotus, Monardella, Rubus, Solidago, and Trifolium. Nests underground. No potential Lack of signicant nectar sources, and species has not been observed in the area for several decades. Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle Optioservus canus --/--/-- G2 S1 Occurs in streams in Monterey and San Benito counties. Little is known about the life history of this species. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Hom’s micro-blind harvestman Microcina homi --/--/-- G1 S1 Found underneath rocks with moist surfaces on deep serpentine soil with fairly gentle slopes, and frequently with adjacent running water. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Plants, Mosses & Lichens Wavyleaf soaproot Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. minus --/--/1B.2 G5T3 S3 Bulbiferous perennial herb found in chaparral. Flowers from May. – Aug. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Bulbiferous herb found in moist areas, often ultramafic, open hills, in valley and foothill grasslands. Flowers from Feb. – Apr. No potential Suitably habitat not present. California alkali grass Puccinellia simplex --/--/1B.2 G3 S2 Annual grass that occurs in saline flats and mineral springs in Valley Grassland and wetland-riparian communities. Flowers from Mar. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 31 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Anderson's manzanita Arctostaphylos andersonii --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Perennial evergreen shrub that occurs in chaparral, and in openings and edges of broadleafed upland forest and North Coast coniferous forest. Flowers from Nov. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Pajaro manzanita Arctostaphylos pajaroensis --/--/1B.1 G1 S1 Evergreen shrub found in chaparral communities, mainly in the Pajaro River Valley in Monterey County. Flowers from Dec. – Mar. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Big-scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Flowering plant in the sunflower tribe of the aster family. Grows in dry, open habitat, mostly in mountainous areas. Flowers from Mar. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae --/--/1B.1 G3G4T2 S2 Annual herb found in sandy or gravelly openings in chaparral and foothill cismontane woodland communities. Flowers from May. – Aug. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Chaparral harebell Campanula exigua --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb that grows on talus slopes in chaparral communities, generally in serpentine soil. Flowers from May. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Tiburon paintbrush Castilleja affinis var. neglecta FE/CT/1B.2 G4G5T1T2 S1S2 Hemiparasitic perennial herb that occurs in rocky, serpentine sites in valley and foothill grasslands. Flowers from Apr. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Pink creamsacs Castilleja rubicundula var. rubicundula --/--/1B.2 G5T2 S2 Annual herb that occurs in serpentinite habitat in chaparral openings, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Flowers from Apr. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 32 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Coyote ceanothus Ceanothus ferrisiae FE/--/1B.1 G1 S1 Flowering shrub that occurs in chaparral in serpentine soils. It is endemic to Santa Clara county and is only known from four or five occurrences near Mt. Hamilton. Flowers from Jan. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/1B.1 G3T1T2 S1S2 Annual herb that usually occurs in wetlands and occasionally in non-wetlands in valley grassland communities. Flowers from May. – Oct. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Monterey spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens FT/--/1B.2 G2T2 S2 Annual herb that occurs in coastal and dune habitats in coastal strand, northern coastal scrub, coastal sage scrub, closed-cone pine forest, yellow pine forest, foothill woodland, and chaparral communities. Flowers from Apr. – Jul. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Mt. Hamilton thistle Cirsium fontinale var. campylon --/--/1B.2 G2T2 S2 Perennial herb that occurs in wetlands in chaparral, valley grassland, foothill woodland, and wetland-riparian communities. Flowers from Apr. – Oct. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Clara red ribbons Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa --/--/4.3 G5?T3 S3 Annual herb that occurs in foothill woodlands in the San Francisco Bay. Flowers from May. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. San Francisco collinsia Collinsia multicolor --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb that occurs in northern coastal scrub and closed-cone pine forests. Flowers from Mar. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 33 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Hospital Canyon larkspur Delphinium californicum ssp. interius --/--/1B.2 G3T3 S3 Perennial herb that occurs usually in non-wetlands and occasionally in wetlands in foothill woodlands. Flowers from Apr. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Clara valley dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii FE/--/1B.1 G4T2 S2 Perennial herb that grows in rocky outcrops in serpentine grasslands. Flowers from May. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Hoover’s button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri --/--/1B.1 G5T1 S1 Annual or perennial herb that occurs in vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and occasionally alkaline habitat. Flowers in Jun. No potential Not observed on site and not expected based on habitat present. . San Joaquin spearscale Extriplex joaquinana --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb that occurs usually in non-wetlands and occasionally in wetlands in meadows within shadscale scrub and valley grassland. Flowers from Apr. – Sept. No potential No suitable habitat present. Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina --/--/1B.1 G2? S2? Perennial herb that occurs in mixed evergreen forest and chaparral communities. Flowers from May. – Aug. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia FT/CE/1B.1 G1 S1 Found in clay and sandy soils in coastal terrace prairie habitat. Elevation: 10-220 M Flowers from Jun. – Oct. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Legenere Legenere limosa --/--/1B.1 G2 S2 Annual herb that occurs in wetlands, vernal pools, and ponds within valley grassland and freshwater wetlands. Flowers from Apr. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 34 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Mt. Hamilton coreopsis Leptosyne hamiltonii --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb that occurs on dry, exposed slopes in foothill woodland. Flowers from Mar. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Smooth lessingia Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata --/--/1B.2 G2T2 S2 Annual herb found in serpentine outcrops and gravelly roadcuts in chaparral. Flowers from Jul. – Nov. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Arcuate bush-mallow Malacothamnus arcuatus --/--/1B.2 G2Q S2 Shrub that occurs in open chaparral in foothill woodlands. Flowers from Apr. – Sept. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Hall’s bush-mallow Malacothamnus hallii --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Shrub found in open chaparral. Flowers from May. – Sept. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Woodland woolythreads Monolopia gracilens --/--/1B.2 G3 S3 Annual herb that occurs in serpentine broadleafed upland forest openings, chaparral openings, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest openings, and valley and foothill grasslands. Flowers from Feb. – Jul. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata --/--/1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb that occurs in alkaline floodplains and vernal pools in coastal sage scrub and wetland-riparian habitats. Flowers from Apr. – Jul. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue Penstemon rattanii var. kleei --/--/1B.2 G4T2 S2 Perennial herb found in chaparral, yellow pine forest, and north coastal coniferous forest. Flowers from May. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 35 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Common Name Scientific Name Status: Federal/ State/CNPS NatureServe Other Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Hairless popcornflower Plagiobothrys glaber --/--/1A GX SX Annual herb that grows in coastal meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. Presumed extinct. Flowers from Mar. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Rock sanicle Sanicula saxatilis --/Rare/1B.2 G2 S2 Perennial herb found on rocky ridges or talus in chaparral and valley grasslands. Flowers from Apr. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Metcalf Canyon jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus FE/--/1B.1 G2T1 S1 Annual herb that grows in serpentine, grassy, barren slopes in valley grasslands. Flowers from Apr. – Jul. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Most beautiful jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus --/--/1B.2 G2T2 S2 USFS:S Annual herb found in serpentinite chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands. Flowers from Mar. – Oct. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Mt. Hamilton jewelflower Streptanthus callistus --/--/1B.3 G1G2 S1S2 Annual herb that grows in open chaparral and gravelly sedimentary scree within chaparral and foothill woodland. Flowers from Apr. – May. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Santa Cruz clover Trifolium buckwestiorum --/--/1B.1 G2 S2 Annual herb found on the edges of coastal prairie and mixed evergreen forest, generally in grassy or disturbed areas. Flowers from Apr. – Oct. No potential Suitable habitat not present. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilium --/CR/1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb found in small seeps and springs, salt marshes, swamps, vernal pools, and grassy openings in valley and foothill grasslands. Flowers from Apr. – Jun. No potential Suitable habitat not present. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 36 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM STATUS CODE ABBREVIATION KEY FEDERAL: FE = listed as Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act FT = listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act D = Delisted from the Federal Endangered Species Act -- = No designation STATE: CE = listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act CT = listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act CC = Candidate to become a state listed Endangered or Threatened Species FP = Fully Protected Species under California Fish and Game Code -- = No designation CNPS RARE PLANT RANK (RPP): 1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = Review List: Plants about which more information is needed 4 = Watch List: Plants of limited distribution CNPS THREAT RANKS 0.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) NATURESERVE CONSERVATION STATUS RANKINGS G1 = Globally Critically Imperiled — At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = Globally Imperiled — At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = Globally Vulnerable — At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. S1 = State Critically Imperiled — At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. S2 = State Imperiled — At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. S3 = State Vulnerable — At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. OTHER: SSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Birds of Conservation Concern USFS:S = U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species AFS:TH = American Fisheries Society: Threatened AS = Audubon Society (species protected when nesting) NABCI:RW = The U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Red Watch List NABCI:YWL = The U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Yellow Watch List WBWG:M = Western Bat Working Group: Medium Priority WBWG:H = Western Bat Working Group: High Priority ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.B.i Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 37 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM APPENDIX B: Representative Photos of Project Site Photo B-1: View of project site and seasonal wetland bisecting the site. (facing SW) Photo B-2: Culvert along Kern Avenue. Photo taken facing N. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Biological Resource Assessment For Kern and St. Clar Project, Gilroy, CA Page 38 1410 31ST AVENUE – SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122 – PH: 415-404-6757 – CELL: 650-269-3894 EMAIL: CRECOLOGY@GMAIL.COM – WWW.CRECOLOGY.COM Photo B-3: Representative photo of grassland habitat and surrounding residential homes. Photo taken from center of site facing SE. Photo B-4: View of project site facing NW. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Appendix D Noise and Vibration Assessment 8.B.i Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT Gilroy, California February 10, 2021 Prepared for: David Hogan, AICP Principal Planner M-Group 307 Orchard City Drive, Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 Prepared by: Cameron Heyvaert Michael S. Thill 429 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 (707) 794-0400 Project: 21-010 8.B.i Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 2 INTRODUCTION The project proposes to construct 29 single-family homes with a corresponding private street and common open space. The approximately 3.74-acre project site is currently vacant. This study evaluates the potential for construction related noise and vibration impacts at adjacent land uses. This report includes a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses construction noise and vibration levels expected at receptors near the project site. Based on a review of construction information provided by the applicant, recommendations are made to mitigate construction noise and vibration impacts to less-than-significant levels. Fundamentals of Environmental Noise Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from 8.B.i Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 3 the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 4 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn or DNL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 5 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 100 dBA Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 90 dBA Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA Large business office Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime 30 dBA Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 20 dBA Broadcast/recording studio 10 dBA 0 dBA Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 6 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous vibration levels produce. The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level. Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 7 TABLE 3 Reactions of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels Velocity Level, PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.01 Barely perceptible No effect 0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure 0.08 Distinctly perceptible to strongly perceptible Recommended upper level of the vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.1 Strongly perceptible Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to most buildings 0.25 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to historic and some old buildings. 0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures 0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered unpleasant Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to new residential and modern commercial/industrial structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, September 2013. Regulatory Background The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Gilroy have established regulatory criteria that are applicable in this assessment. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below. California Department of Transportation Caltrans recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings (see Table 3). City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan The noise-related goal of the City’s General Plan is to “Protect Gilroy residents from exposure to excessive noise and its effects through appropriate mitigation measures and responsive land use planning, especially in regard to noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and housing for seniors.” The following policies, applicable to the development of the site, are set forth in the General Plan to facilitate this goal: 8.B.i Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8 PH 6.10 Construction Noise Require proposed development projects subject to discretionary approval to assess potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and to minimize impacts on those uses, to the extent feasible. PH 6.12 Vibration Impact Assessment Require a vibration impact assessment for proposed development projects in which heavy-duty construction equipment would be used (e.g., pile driving, bulldozing) within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor. If applicable, require all feasible mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure that no damage or disturbance to structures or sensitive receptors would occur. Gilroy City Code Chapter 16.38 of the City Code defines the allowable construction hours. This section states the following: (a) Unless otherwise provided for in a validly issued permit or approval, construction activities shall be limited to the hours of seven (7:00) a.m. and seven (7:00) p.m., Monday through Friday, and nine (9:00) a.m. to seven (7:00) p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities shall not occur on Sundays or City holidays, which include: New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas. “Construction activities” are defined as including but not limited to, excavation, grading, paving, demolitions, construction, alteration or repair of any building, site, street or highway, delivery or removal of construction material to a site, or movement of constriction materials on a site. (b) In the event the chief building official or his or her designee determines that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the construction activities between the hours of seven (7:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m., and that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, the chief building official may grant permission for such work to be done between the hours of seven (7:00) p.m. and seven (7:00) a.m. upon an application being made at the time the permit for the work is issued or during the progress of the work. (d) No third person, including but not limited to, landowners, construction company owners, contractors, subcontractors, or employers, shall permit or allow any person working on construction activities, which are under their ownership, control or direction to violate this provision. The provisions prescribed herein may be enforced by the chief building official or his or her designee or the police department. Violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor and each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue constitutes a separate offense and shall be punishable as such (Ord. No. 2004-15, § I, 9- 7-04). 8.B.i Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 9 Construction Noise Impacts Temporary noise increases resulting from construction vary depending upon the noise levels generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas, and the presence of intervening shielding features such as buildings or terrain. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Construction activities for individual projects are typically carried out in stages. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. Typical construction noise levels at a distance of 50 feet are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 shows the average noise level ranges by construction phase, and Table 5 shows the maximum noise level ranges for different construction equipment. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors. TABLE 4 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic Housing Office Building, Hotel, Hospital, School, Public Works Industrial Parking Garage, Religious Amusement & Recreations, Store, Service Station Public Works Roads & Highways, Sewers, and Trenches I II I II I II I II Ground Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84 Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78 Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88 Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78 Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84 I - All pertinent equipment present at site. II - Minimum required equipment present at site. Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 10 TABLE 5 Construction Equipment 50-foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuou s Arc Welder Auger Drill Rig Backhoe Bar Bender Boring Jack Power Unit Chain Saw Compressor3 Compressor (other) Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump Concrete Saw Concrete Vibrator Crane Dozer Excavator Front End Loader Generator Generator (25 KVA or less) Gradall Grader Grinder Saw Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack Hydra Break Ram Impact Pile Driver Insitu Soil Sampling Rig Jackhammer Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Paver Pneumatic Tools Pumps Rock Drill Scraper Slurry Trenching Machine Soil Mix Drill Rig Street Sweeper Tractor Truck (dump, delivery) Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck) Vibratory Compactor Vibratory Pile Driver All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP 73 85 80 80 80 85 70 80 85 82 90 80 85 85 85 80 82 70 85 85 85 80 90 105 84 85 90 85 85 77 85 85 82 80 80 84 84 85 80 95 85 Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Impact Impact Continuous Impact Impact Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Notes: 1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation. 3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 11 Project construction is anticipated to take place over a period of about 19 months, from January 2022 to August 2023. The construction of the proposed project would involve site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, building erection, interior/architectural coating, and paving. Table 6 shows the anticipated construction noise levels at surrounding receptors calculated throughout all phases of construction based on the provided equipment list. Construction noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Pile driving would not be used as a method of construction. Noise sensitive uses surrounding the site include residential land uses to the north, south and east, and across Kern Avenue to the west. As shown in Table 6, project construction would have the potential to temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. City Code Zoning Ordinance Section 16.38 establishes allowed hours of construction and construction best practices to be followed to reduce the impact of construction noise on adjacent or nearby properties. These, and additional recommended best practices which would further ensure project construction would not result in excessive noise levels at surrounding receptors, are listed below: • Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of seven (7:00) a.m. and seven (7:00) p.m., Monday through Friday, and nine (9:00) a.m. to seven (7:00) p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities shall not occur on Sundays or City holidays. • Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; • Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; • Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; • Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; • The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with nearby residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. Implementation of the above measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Construction Noise Mitigation Measure: None required. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 12 TABLE 6 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses Phase of Construction Time Duration (no. of days) Construction Equipment (Quantity) Calculated Hourly Average Noise Levels, Leq (dBA) Residential East (180 ft) Residential North and South (215 ft) Residential West (230 ft) Site Preparation 3 Grader (1) 70 68 68 Grading & Excavation 78 Excavator (1) Rubber-Tired Dozer (1) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) 70 68 68 Trenching & Foundation 4 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) 62 61 60 Building Exterior 200 Crane (2) Forklift (1) Generator Set (1) Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) 70 68 68 Building Interior & Architectural Coating 10 Air Compressor (2) 66 64 63 Paving 10 Cement and Mortar Mixers (1) Paving Equipment (1) Roller (1) 68 66 66 All distances are relative to the approximate center of construction at the project site. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 13 Construction Vibration Impacts The City of Gilroy does not specify a construction vibration limit. For structural damage, Caltrans recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings (see Table 3). The 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would be applicable to properties in the vicinity of the project site. Based on a search with the City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory, historic buildings were not identified to be within 1,000 feet of the project site. Construction activities often generate perceptible vibration levels and levels that could affect nearby structures when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, pile drivers, hoe rams) are used in the vicinity of nearby sensitive land uses. Building damage generally falls into three categories. Cosmetic damage (also known as threshold damage) is defined as hairline cracking in plaster, the opening of old cracks, the loosening of paint or the dislodging of loose objects. Minor damage is defined as hairline cracking in masonry or the loosening of plaster. Major structural damage is defined as wide cracking or the shifting of foundation or bearing walls. Table 7 presents typical vibration levels from construction equipment at 25 feet. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 7 also presents construction vibration levels at representative distances from the construction equipment located at the closest property line to the nearest structures. Vibration levels are highest close to the source, and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate (Dref/D)1.1, where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. TABLE 7 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) Reference at 25 ft. Residential Building East 5 ft. Residential Building North 30 ft. Residential Buildings West 60 ft. Residential Building South 225 ft. Clam shovel drop 0.202 1.186 0.165 0.077 0.018 Hydromill (slurry wall) in soil 0.008 0.047 0.007 0.003 0.001 in rock 0.017 0.100 0.014 0.006 0.002 Vibratory Roller 0.210 1.233 0.172 0.080 0.019 Hoe Ram 0.089 0.523 0.073 0.034 0.008 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.523 0.073 0.034 0.008 Caisson drilling 0.089 0.523 0.073 0.034 0.008 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.446 0.062 0.029 0.007 Jackhammer 0.035 0.206 0.029 0.013 0.003 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.018 0.002 0.001 0.000 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., February 2021. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 14 The US Bureau of Mines has analyzed the effects of blast-induced vibration on buildings in USBM RI 8507 1, and these findings have been applied to vibrations emanating from construction equipment on buildings 2. Figure 1 presents the damage probability as reported in USBM RI 8507 and reproduced by Dowding assuming a maximum vibration level of 1.2 in/sec PPV. As shown on Figure 1, these studies indicate a less than 20% probability of “threshold damage” (referred to as cosmetic damage elsewhere in this report) at vibration levels of 1.2 in/sec PPV or less and no observations of “minor damage” or “major damage” at vibration levels of 1.2 in/sec PPV or less. Based on these data, cosmetic or threshold damage would be manifested in the form of hairline cracking in plaster, the opening of old cracks, the loosening of paint or the dislodging of loose objects. However, minor damage (e.g., hairline cracking in masonry or the loosening of plaster) or major structural damage (e.g., wide cracking or shifting of foundation or bearing walls) would not occur at the adjacent buildings assuming a maximum vibration level of 1.2 in/sec PPV. Other buildings of normal conventional construction located 30 to 225 feet from the project site would not be exposed to vibration levels exceeding the 0.3 in/sec PPV. Based on the data summarized in Figure 1, there were no observations of “threshold damage”, “minor damage”, or “major damage” at buildings of normal conventional construction when vibration levels were 0.3 in/sec PPV or less. 1 Siskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H. Dowding, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration form Surface Mine Blasting, RI 8507, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1980. 2 Dowding, C.H., Construction Vibrations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1996. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 15 FIGURE 1 Probability of Cracking and Fatigue from Repetitive Loading Source: Dowding, C.H., Construction Vibrations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1996 as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., February 2021. No Observations of “Minor Damage” or “Major Damage” at 1.2 in/sec PPV 0.3 in/sec PPV No Observations of “Threshold Damage”, “Minor Damage”, or “Major Damage” at 0.3 in/sec PPV 1.2 in/sec PPV 20% Probability of “Threshold Damage” at 1.2 in/sec PPV 8.B.i Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 16 As indicated in Table 7, heavy construction located within 20 feet of structures would have the potential to exceed the California Department of Transportation’s recommended limit of 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest buildings to the east when construction activities are occurring along the shared property lines. Construction vibration levels would decrease as construction activities move towards the interior of the site. This is a potentially significant impact. Construction Vibration Mitigation Measure: The following measures shall be implemented where vibration levels due to construction activities would exceed 0.30 in/sec PPV at the nearby buildings east of the project site: • Prohibit the use of heavy vibration-generating construction equipment within 20 feet of adjacent buildings. • Use a smaller vibratory roller, such as the Caterpillar model CP433E vibratory compactor, when compacting materials within 20 feet of adjacent buildings. Only use the static compaction mode when compacting materials within 10 feet of buildings. • Avoid dropping heavy equipment and use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder, instead of dropping heavy objects, within 20 feet of adjacent buildings. • The contractor shall alert heavy equipment operators to the close proximity of the adjacent structures so they can exercise extra care. • Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce a potential impact to a less-than- significant level. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Appendix E Memorandum on Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis 8.B.i Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Memorandum Date:March 16, 2021 To:David Hogan, M-Group From:Gicela Del Rio, T.E. Subject:9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue Residential Development VMT Evaluation Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)evaluation for the proposed residential project located at 9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue in the City of Gilroy. The project as proposed would build 29 single-family residential units on the project site. The project site is located on the east side of Kern Avenue, between St. Clar Avenue and Tatum Avenue. The site is currently vacant. Access to the project would be provided via a new driveway along Kern Avenue. This memo summarizes the results of the evaluation of the proposed project’s effect on VMT. Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 2019 Update Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that VMT will be the metric in analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects for CEQA purposes. VMT Evaluation Methodology Vehicle Miles Traveled is the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a day. VMT measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips with one end within the project. Typically, development projects that are farther from other, complementary land uses (such as a business park far from housing) and in areas without transit or active transportation infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) generate more driving than development near complementary land uses with more robust transportation options. Therefore, developments located in a central business district with high density and diversity of complementary land uses and frequent transit services are expected to internalize trips and generate shorter and fewer vehicle trips than developments located in a suburban area with low density of residential developments and no transit serve in the project vicinity. The evaluation of the project’s effects on VMT was completed using Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA)VMT Evaluation Tool. The VMT tool identifies the existing average VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the project area based on the assessor’s parcel number (APN) of a project. Based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction measures, the evaluation tool calculates the project VMT. Projects located in areas where the existing VMT is above the established threshold are referred to as being in “high-VMT areas”. Projects in high-VMT areas are required to include a set of VMT reduction measures that would reduce the project VMT to the greatest extent possible. VMT Policies and Impact Criteria To adhere to the state’s legislation, the City of Gilroy is currently developing the framework for new transportation policies based on the implementation of VMT as the primary measure of transportation impacts for CEQA purposes. However, since the City has not formally adopted its own City-specific 8.B.i Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 9130&9160 Kern Avenue Residential Development VMT Evaluation March 16, 2021 P a g e | 2 VMT policies, this study utilizes VMT analysis methodology and impact thresholds recommended in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018. Per OPR’s technical advisory, VMT per resident (capita) is the recommended metric to evaluate CEQA- related transportation impacts for residential land uses. As stated in the technical advisory, OPR recommends an impact threshold of 15% below the existing VMT levels for residential land uses. OPR allows the existing VMT to be measured as regional or citywide VMT per capita.Therefore, 15% below the city-wide residential VMT per capita is established as the impact threshold for the project. The VTA’s VMT Evaluation Tool indicates that the citywide average VMT per capita is currently 18.92. Therefore, the OPR recommended impact threshold of 15% below the citywide average VMT per capita equates to 16.08 VMT per capita. VMT Evaluation The results of the VMT analysis using the VTA’s VMT Evaluation Tool indicate that the existing VMT for residential uses in the project vicinity is 19.01 VMT per capita. The results also indicate that the project is projected to generate 18.89 VMT per capita. The project’s VMT per capita is estimated to be slightly lower than the citywide average VMT per capita, however, the project’s VMT would exceed the OPR’s recommended impact threshold of 16.08 VMT per capita. Therefore, the project would result in an impact on the transportation system based on OPR’s VMT impact criteria. The VTA VMT Evaluation Tool output sheet is shown on Figure 1. VMT Impacts and Mitigation Using OPR’s impact thresholds, the project would need to implement VMT reduction measures to achieve a 15% reduction (18.89 to 16.08)in its VMT per capita for the proposed residential uses to reduce its impact to less than significant levels. The project’s VMT per capita could be reduced with the implementation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies. TDM strategies that could be implemented by the project in an effort to reduce its VMT per capita include the following: TP01 –School Pool Programs: Organize a program that matches families in carpools for school pick-up and drop-off of all households from the project. Organizing a school pool program helps match parents who transport students to schools without a busing program, including private schools, charter schools, and neighborhood schools where students cannot walk or bike. The school pool program would be open to all families in the development. School pools reduce the total number of vehicle trips traveling to and from schools, thereby reducing VMT. and TP14 –Transit Service Expansion: Project subsidizes transit service through fees and contributions to the transit provider, thereby improving transit service to the project, resulting in increased use of transit and reduced VMT. There are currently no bus lines serving the project site directly.and TP18 –Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs: Provide a program that targets individual attitudes towards travel and providing tools for individuals to analyze and alter their travel behavior with 100% expected resident participation. These programs include mass communication campaigns and travel feedback programs, such as travel diaries or feedback on calories burned from activities and travel. This strategy encourages the use of shared ride modes, transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 9130&9160 Kern Avenue Residential Development VMT Evaluation March 16, 2021 P a g e | 3 Implementation of the above three TDM strategies, however,would not achieve the 15%reduction in VMT per capita required to mitigate the VMT impact. OPR’s recommended 15% below existing VMT impact threshold encourages developments in transit- rich, highly mixed-use areas to implement design features and trip reduction measures to take advantage of existing multi-model infrastructure and land use mixes in reducing trip making and/or trip lengths. However, many communities such as Gilroy have very limited multi-modal transportation infrastructure and lack a mix of complementary land uses. The lack of employment in these communities along with minimal transit options results in a greater number and longer commute trips. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that developments like the proposed project in these cities can achieve OPR’s recommended 15% reduction in VMT.Therefore, absent of the City adopting its own City- specific VMT policies and impact thresholds, the proposed project’s VMT impact must be deemed significant and unavoidable. 8.B.i Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 9130&9160 Kern Avenue Residential Development VMT Evaluation March 16, 2021 P a g e | 4 Table 1 VMT Analysis Results 8.B.i Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Final Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND FINAL INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED BY: METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 307 ORCHARD CITY DRIVE, SUITE 100 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 July 9, 2021 8.B.j Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) [Page Intentionally Left Blank] 8.B.j Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. CEQA REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2. ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT .................................................................................... 1 1.3. APPROACHES TO REDUCE PROJECT IMPACTS ....................................................................... 2 2. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS .................................................................................................. 3 2.1. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2. VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ................................................................................................. 3 2.3. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ................................................................................. 4 2.4. CITY OF GILROY, HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE .............. 5 2.5. CITY OF GILROY, BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION .......................................................... 6 2.6. BRIAN BARNACLE, OUT-THINK LLC ........................................................................................ 7 3. REVISIONS TO THE IS/ND .................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 BIOLOGIC RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 9 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY ........................................................................................ 9 4. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 10 ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 11 8.B.j Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 1 1. INTRODUCTION This document provides responses to comments received on the Public Review Draft of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for The Cottages at Kern Project (hereinafter referred to as the “project”). These responses address issues raised by the commenters and may clarify or amplify the text of the Draft IS/ND. This document also includes corrections and additions to the Draft IS/ND in response to comments received. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (California Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq.), the Initial Study was circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period from April 30, 2021, to May 30, 2021, and circulated to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state regulatory agencies from June 8, 2021, to July 8, 2021 (SCH #2021060179). Comment letters received on the Draft IS/ND are presented in Section 2 below. While the IS/ND has been modified in response to the public comments, this new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the IS/ND. These corrections and additions clarify or correct text in the Draft IS/ND and do not change the findings or conclusions of the analysis. As explained herein, in light of the whole record, the City of Gilroy finds that all potentially significant impacts have been adequately addressed in the IS/ND and this Response to Comments. 1.1. CEQA REQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 identifies the responsibilities of the Lead Agency when considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration: (a) Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. (b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the City of Gilroy has reviewed and considered all comments received on the IS/ND. CEQA does not require the lead agency to prepare a response to public comments received on a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Nevertheless, the City of Gilroy has prepared this response to comments document to fully disclose public and agency comments received and to provide responses to those comments. 1.2. ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT The comments received on the Draft IS/ND and responses to those comments are included in Section 2, “Responses to Public Comments.” Section 3 identifies “Revisions to the IS/ND,” which include corrections and 8.B.j Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 2 additional information. Section 4, “Summary” contains a summary of the responses-to-comments process and subsequent action by the City of Gilroy regarding the Project. The comments received are provided in Attachment A. 1.3. APPROACHES TO REDUCE PROJECT IMPACTS There are four different ways that a measure or activity can be implemented to reduce a potentially significant impact on the environment. Each of these ways result in the implementation of a feature or activity to reduce a project’s environmental effects. There are four basic methods are summarized below. o Project Component – Integrate the mitigating feature into the design of the project. o Standard Requirement – Implement required regulations or programs during project construction. o Specific Condition of Approval – Adopt a specific condition of approval requiring the implementation of the mitigation feature or requirement. o CEQA Mitigation Measure – Adopt a specific mitigation measure requiring the implementation of the mitigation feature or requirement. 8.B.j Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 3 2. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Five comment letters were received during the public review and comment period. A brief description of each comment letter is included below. The agencies, organizations and individuals that submitted written comments on the IS/ND are as follows. AGENCIES 1. State Agency Comments 2. Valley Transit Authority 3. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) 4. City of Gilroy, Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 5. City of Gilroy, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission PRIVATE ENTITIES & INDIVIDUALS 6. Brian Barnacle, Out-think, LLC 2.1. STATE AGENCY COMMENTS No State agency comments were received. 2.2. VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY The Valley Transit Authority provided a comment letter on May 27, 2021. A copy of the letter is provided in Attachment A-1. The letter provided additional information on local transit options and suggested mitigation measures to reduce VMT. The comments are summarized and responded to below. Comment 1. Transit Service. The commenter disagrees with the conclusion provided in the Memorandum on Vehicle Miles Traveled (contained in Appendix E to the Initial Study) that the project site is not directly served by transit. The commenter identifies the two bus lines that provide service near the Project site. The first is a local route, Route 85 which is 3/10’s of a mile from the site. The second route, Route 68 has 15-minute headways and connects the Gilroy Transit Center with the Downtown San Jose is less than a mile away. Response: The first is a local transit route, Route 85, has one-hour headways and, according to Google Maps, the closest stop locations are about half a mile away from the site (as measured by street walking distance). The second route, Route 68, has 15-minute headways but the closest stop location is a little over a mile from the project site (as measured by street walking distance). Given the distances between the project site and the closest bus stops, the project site is not directly served by transit. Updated information on the proximity of existing transit routes is being added to the Transportation and Mobility section of the Initial Study. Comment 2. VMT Reduction Methods. The commenter encourages the City to incorporate specific enforceable measures to reduce VMT and promote the use of transit. These measures could include a School Pool Program and a Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program, as identified in the Memorandum on VMT. In addition, VTA encourages the applicant to provide free or 8.B.j Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 4 deeply discounted transit passes to project residents on an ongoing basis, and to contribute funding to purchase several eBikes to be stationed in the development common area as part of the eBike pilot program in Gilroy. Response: The Initial Study identified three VMT Reduction measures but concluded that the measures were infeasible because of the location of the project and the lack of an existing local Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/VMT Reduction programs for the project proponent to participate in. The three identified programs are: TP01–School Pool Programs, TP14–Transit Service Expansion, and TP18–Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program. However, none of these programs currently exist within the City. During the adoption of the 2040 General Plan, the City Council made the following findings in adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations for any significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and vehicle miles traveled. 1. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan is consistent with the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, proposed and approved by Gilroy voters. 2. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan will provide a variety of housing types(3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-family units)that will help the City’s regional fair share housing requirements. 3. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan will provide opportunities for new industrial, commercial, and retail jobs (21,434)to assist with balancing Gilroy’s jobs and Gilroy’s workforce. 4. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan will provide housing opportunities to accommodate the projected increase in population (19,756) and provide opportunities for new industrial, commercial, and retail use to contribute to the City’s tax base. 5. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan results in conversion of fewer acres of important farmland than was accommodated in the 2020 General Plan, because of the 2016Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. 6. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan does not expand the urban growth boundary beyond that approved by the people of Gilroy in the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. Notwithstanding these findings, during the project approval process with the Planning Commission and City Council, TDM measures appropriate for a small-scale project (like contributing funds to support the ebike program or providing transit passes) could be volunteered by the applicant or required by the City. The comment is noted, and no changes are necessary to the Initial Study. 2.3. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) provided comments on May 27, 2021. A copy of the letter is provided in Attachment A-2. The comments are summarized and responded to below. Comment 1. Rerouting Storm Runoff from Upper Miller Slough to Lions Creek. The commenter noted that all runoff from the site should continue to flow southeasterly into Upper Miller Slough and should not be redirected northward into Lions Creek since the site is located within the Upper 8.B.j Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 5 Miller Slough watershed. The CEQA documentation noted that mitigation would be provided to limit post-development runoff and ensure that it does not exceed runoff under pr e- development conditions. If there is an increase in runoff under post-development conditions, the City should determine if the existing capacity of Upper Miller Slough or Lions Creek can accommodate the additional runoff. Response: The Project contains improvements to comply with NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit which regulates discharges into the watershed with the intent to reduce storm water pollution and protect the water quality of our local creeks and waterways and continue to promote groundwater recharge. The design of the Project includes Low Impact Development (LID) components which maintain some of the site’s infiltrative functions. Prior to construction the Project will be required to demonstrate that runoff volumes after project construction will be the same as pre-construction volumes. Finally, the City Public Works Department has evaluated the additional flows to Lions Creek and determined that there is sufficient channel capacity to contain the additional flows. Since both Lions Creek and Miller Slough are tributaries to Llagas Creek (which is itself a tributary to the Pajaro River), the overall effect of this change is minimal. No corrections or changes are necessary to the Initial Study. Comment 2. Inconsistent Information in the Initial Study. The commenter noted that under Biologic Resources, Subsection ‘f’, the fourth sentence of the paragraph states “The site is less than two acres in size…” However, the Project Description states that the project proposes to subdivide the 3.74-acre site. Response: The project site is indeed 3.74 acres. Subsection ‘f’ will be corrected to reflect the correct project site acreage. 2.4. CITY OF GILROY, HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE The Committee Chairperson provided a comment letter on May 27, 2021. A copy of the letter is provided in Attachment A-3. The letter expressed concerns about the proposed project. The comment is summarized and responded to below. Comment. Type of Residential Development. The commenter disagreed with type of the proposed small lot single family development since more market and affordable units could be constructed with an attached unit development pattern. Response: The comment does not raise concerns regarding environmental impact-related issues. The comment is focused on the design of the proposed Project and its merits, not its impacts to the environment. The allowed development types and overall land use pattern are defined by the 2040 General Plan. The impacts of the 2040 General Plan were evaluated with an Environmental Impact Report. The Zoning Code (Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code) along with related provisions and design guidelines implement the 2040 General Plan in the areas of land use and development. As indicated in the Project Description, the site is designated Neighborhood Low Density. This designation envisions a variety of attached and detached residential uses. Section 30.11.10 indicates that single family homes are a permitted use (permitted by right) in the R-3 Zone. The project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Code. No corrections or changes are necessary to the Initial Study. 8.B.j Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 6 2.5. CITY OF GILROY, BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION The Committee Chairperson provided a comment letter on May 2 8, 2021. A copy of the letter is provided in Attachment A-4. The letter expressed concerns about the need for a robust transportation demand management (TDM). The comments are summarized and responded to below. Comment 1. Feasible TDM Measures. The commenter disagreed with the conclusion that mitigating TDM measures are infeasible because programs could be developed and implemented in the future. Response: The Initial Study identified three VMT reduction measures that could potentially reduce Project impacts. The programs involved citywide activities to form ride to school pools, improve local transit, and programs to encourage changes in how people tra vel. None of these programs have been established by the City or the Gilroy Unified School District. Under CEQA, for a mitigation measure to be implementable it must either be in existence or be required/conditioned to be created and funded as part of project approval. For a mitigation measure to be feasible it needs to implementable and enforceable. A proposal or mitigation concept that can be implemented in the timeframe of the project is infeasible unless the project applicant is willing to delay project implementation for an indeterminate amount of time. Since these TDM programs do not exist and are not being conditioned as part of the Project, the measures cannot be implemented and are therefore infeasible. However, TDM measures appropriate for a small-scale project (such as contributing funds to support the ebike program or providing transit passes) could be volunteered by the applicant or required by the City during the project approval process with the Planning Commission and City Council. No corrections or changes are necessary to the Initial Study. Comment 2. Additional TDM Measures. The commenter disagreed with the conclusion that the mitigation measures are infeasible because programs could be developed and implemented in the future. Response: The commenter identified additional actions that could potentially reduce VMT. TDM programs are most effectively implemented on a citywide or regional basis where a large number of individuals with similar needs in different locations can be combined. As previously discussed, for a mitigation measure to be feasible it needs to be implementable and enforceable. A proposal or mitigation concept, such as a General Plan measure, that cannot be implemented in the timeframe of the Project, is infeasible unless the project applicant is willing to delay project implementation. Since these TDM programs do not exist and are not being conditioned as part of the Project. As previously discussed, these measures are therefore infeasible. However, TDM measures appropriate for a small-scale project (like contributing funds to support the ebike program or providing transit passes) could be volunteered by the applicant or required by the City during the project approval process before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Project does include a sidewalk along Kern Avenue that will partially close an existing gap in the sidewalk network and will contribute to supporting non-automotive transportation. The comment is noted, no changes are necessary to the Initial Study. 8.B.j Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 7 Comment 3. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The commenter disagreed with the conclusion that the mitigation measures are infeasible because programs could be developed and implemented in the future. Response: The certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan included a Statement of Overriding Considerations for VMT. The rationale provided for that decision included locally relevant policy considerations including the need to focus development within the Urban Growth Boundary, to meet the City’s regional fair share housing requirements, and the need to expand local jobs to improve the jobs-housing balance. If TDM measures are adopted by the City Council in the future and are applicable to this Project, these measures could be implemented to reduce future vehicle trips , especially if project construction is delayed for several years. During the adopted of the 2040 General Plan, the City Cou ncil made the following findings in adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations for any significant and unavoidable impacts to: agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and vehicle miles traveled. 1. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan is consistent with the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, proposed and approved by Gilroy voters. 2. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan will provide a variety of housing types(3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-family units)that will help the City’s regional fair share housing requirements. 3. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan will provide opportunities for new industrial, commercial, and retail jobs (21,434)to assist with balancing Gilroy’s jobs and Gilroy’s workforce. 4. Implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan will provide housing opportunities to accommodate the projected increase in population (19,756) and provide opportunities for new industrial, commercial, and retail use to contribute to the City’s tax base. 5. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan results in conversion of fewer acres of important farmland than was accommodated in the 2020 General Plan, because of the 2016Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. 6. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan does not expand the urban growth boundary beyond that approved by the people of Gilroy in the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. No corrections or changes are necessary to the Initial Study. 2.6. BRIAN BARNACLE, OUT-THINK, LLC Brian Barnacle provided a comment letter on May 28, 2001. A copy of the letter is provided in Attachment A-5. The letter provided comments on potential VMT reductions through the use of ebikes. The comments are summarized and responded to below. Comment. Using e-bikes to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. The commenter discussed how the use of ebikes could reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and suggested that the current pilot 8.B.j Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 8 program funded by Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority be expanded to fully mitigate the project’s impacts to VMT. According to the commenter, providing 152 ebikes in and around the City would fully mitigate the VMT impacts from the 29 residential units proposed by the project. The commenter is requesting that the Applicant, City Staff, and the City Council consider funding the expansion of the e-bike pilot program. Response: According to the information provided, the estimated cost of th is suggested mitigation measure would be $481,060 over three years. If this mitigation measure is determined to be necessary by the City during the project approval process, funding sources wou ld need to be identified. However, since many of the generated vehicle trips appear to be the result of longer work commute trips into the more urbanized portions of the Bay Area, it is unclear how the suggested VMT reductions would actually materialize, though there are some potential benefits from reducing air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions through reductions in the use of some fossil fuels. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan determined that the Project is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan and would result in VMT in excess of the State’s VMT Reduction targets. These significant VMT impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of feasible mitig ation measures. As previously discussed, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for VMT based upon the need to focus development within the Urban Growth Boundary, to meet the City’s regional fair share housing requirements, and the need to expand local j obs to improve the jobs-housing balance. No corrections or changes are necessary to the Initial Study. 8.B.j Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 9 3. REVISIONS TO THE IS/ND Minor corrections and additions to the IS/ND are provided below. None of the corrections or additions affect or change the findings or significance conclusions of the environmental analysis in the IS/ND. New text is indicated in underline and text to be deleted is reflected by a strikethrough. Text changes are presented in the page order in which they appear in the IS/MND. 3.1 BIOLOGIC RESOURCES A. Page 31, Subsection ‘f’: is modified to read as follows: “Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan – Equal or Less Impact. A habitat conservation plan (HCP) extends a federally granted endangered species permit (i.e. take authorization) to all projects and activities it covers. The HCP process recognizes the impact of land use activities and establishes a program to provide for a net benefit to specific species. The project site is located within the boundary of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP). The site is less than two acres in size and has a land cover designation of Urban-Suburban and is not known to contain habitat for any of the Plan species. The SCVHP meets the requirements federal Endangered Species Act and enables local agencies to allow projects and activities to occur in endang ered species’ habitats. In exchange, those projects and activities must incorporate HCP -prescribed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse effects on natural communities and endangered species. A key component of the of the SCVHP in urbaniz ed/Suburban environs is the payment of required impact fees. The Project will be required to comply with the provisions of the Habitat Plan and identified as standard requirements.” 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY A. Beginning on Page 65, Subsection “a” is modified to read as follows: “Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled – Equal or Less Impact. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the 2040 General Plan identified impacts to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will exceed the identified State target for both residential and employment. A VMT analysis was prepared for the Project using Valley Transportation Authority’s VMT Evaluation Tool. The results of the analysis indicated that, like the 2040 General Plan, Project VMT would not achieve the 15% vehicle miles traveled reduction target mandated by SB 743. As part of the analysis, four possible transportation demand management measures were identified to help reduce total project VMT. However, even with the implementation of all fo ur strategies, Project VMT still exceeded the reduction target. The four possible strategies are outlined below. • TP01 – School Pool Programs: Organize a program that matches families in carpools for school pick-up and drop-off of all households from the project. The measure would help match parents who transport students to schools without a busing program, including private schools, charter schools, and neighborhood schools where students cannot walk or bike. The school pool program would be open to all families in the development. School pools reduce the total number of vehicle trips traveling to and from schools, thereby reducing VMT. However, the City does not currently have any kind of citywide 8.B.j Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 10 program that the project proponent or future residents could participate in. As a result, this measure is not feasible. • TP14 – Transit Service Expansion: Project subsidizes transit service through fees and contributions to local transit provider. This approach improves transit service to the project, resulting in increased use of transit and reduced VMT. However, there are currently no bus lines serving the project site. The closest transit line is a local route, Route 85, which has one-hour headways. The closest stop locations are about half a mile (walking distance) from the site. The second route, Route 68, has 15- minute headways but the closest stop location is a little over a mile from the project site . Given the distances between the site and the closest bus stops, and this measure is not feasible. • TP18 – Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs: Provide a program that targets individual attitudes towards travel and providing tools for individuals to analyze and alter their travel behavior with 100% expected resident participation. These types of programs include mass communication campaigns and travel feedback programs, to encourage the use of shared ride modes, transit, walking, and biking, all of which reduce VMT. However, the City does not currently have a citywide TDM program that the project proponent or future residents could participate in. As a result, this measure is not feasible. Based upon the VMT analysis performed for this Project, the Project will not achieve the required 15% reduction for residential projects. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this increase in VMT indicating that due to the City’s distant location and its relationship to the regional economy buildout of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, and VMT impacts were identified in the certified Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, and the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations documenting that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the VMT exceedance, no additional mitigation beyond the applicable standard requirements and or subsequent CEQA review is required. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to VMT that are more severe than those identified in the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan.” 4. SUMMARY In the course of preparing written responses to the comments on this project, the City of Gilroy carefully reviewed the information developed through the responses-to-comments process and determined that the project does not meet any of the conditions under CEQA Section 15073.5, as outlined below. The City of Gilroy will consider the proposed IS/ND, together with these responses to comments, prior to approving or disapproving the project. 8.B.j Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS P a g e 11 ATTACHMENTS A-1 Comment Letter from Valley Transportation Authority A-2 Comment from Valley Water A-3 Comment from the Gilroy Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Commission A-4 Comment from the Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission A-5 Comment Letter from Brian Barnacle 8.B.j Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A-1 Valley Transportation Authority 8.B.j Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) May 27, 2021 Miguel Contreras Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 Re: The Cottages at Kern Mitigated negative Declaration Dear Miguel, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Kern Cottages project. VTA has the following comments. Transit Service The Memorandum on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis states that "There are currently no bus lines serving the project site directly" (Appendix E, page 2). While VTA recognizes that this statement may be intended to address the formal definition of transit proximity in the Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Implementing Senate Bill 743, VTA notes that there are actually two bus routes fairly close to the project site. VTA Local Route 85 (which connects to Downtown Gilroy and the Gilroy Caltrain Station) is only about 3/10 of a mile from the project site, and the VTA Frequent Route 68 (which runs every 15 minutes on weekdays and connects to Downtown Gilroy, Caltrain, VTA light rail, and Downtown San Jose) is less than a mile away. VMT Reduction Measures Given the fact that the project VMT would exceed OPR's recommended VMT impact threshold, VTA encourages the City to work with the applicant to identify specific, enforceable measures to reduce VMT and promote use of transit, biking and walking by project residents, and to include these as Conditions of Approval. These measures could include a School Pool Program and a Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program, as identified in the Memorandum on VMT. In addition, VTA encourages the applicant to provide free or deeply discounted transit passes to project residents on an ongoing basis, and to contribute funding to purchase several eBikes to be stationed in the development common area as part of the eBike pilot program in Gilroy. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Robert Swierk at robert.swierk@vta.org or me at brent.pearse@vta.org. Sincerely, Brent Pearse Transportation Planner 8.B.j Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A-2 Valley Water 8.B.j Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 1 From: Benjamin Hwang <BHwang@valleywater.org> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:42 PM To: Miguel Contreras <Miguel.Contreras@ci.gilroy.ca.us> Cc: Yvonne Arroyo <yarroyo@valleywater.org> Subject: EXTERNAL - RE: NOI for 29-lot subdivision in GIlroy Hi Miguel, Please see Valley Water’s comments below for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Cottages at Kern (9130 & 9160 Kern Ave): 1. Valley Water previously commented in December 2020, that all runoff from the site should not be directed to Lions Creek, which is immediately north of the proposed site; all runoff should instead be directed to Upper Miller Slough since the project site is in the Upper Miller Slough watershed. The Stormwater, Flooding, and Groundwater section of the IS/MND should confirm that the site will maintain its existing drainage pattern into Upper Miller Slough. Furthermore, prior CEQA documentation for this site noted that mitigation would be provided to limit post-development runoff and ensure that it does not exceed runoff under pre-development conditions. If there is an increase in runoff under post-development conditions, the City should determine if the existing capacity of Upper Miller Slough can accommodate the additional runoff. 2. Page 31 of the IS/MND under Section ‘f’ – the fourth sentence of the paragraph states “The site is less than two acres in size…” This statement conflicts with the Description of the Project on Page 3 of the IS/MND, which states “The project proposes to subdivide the 3.74-acre site…” Please verify the acreage of the proposed site and revise accordingly in the IS/MND. If you have any questions or need further clarification of Valley Water’s comments, please feel free to email me, or reach me at (408) 510-0768. Thank you, BENJAMIN HWANG, P.E. ASSISTANT ENGINEER II - CIVIL Community Projects Review Unit Watersheds Design and Construction Division bhwang@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-3066 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection 8.B.j Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A-3 Gilroy Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Commission 8.B.j Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A-4 Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 8.B.j Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) THE COTTAGES AT KERN | CITY OF GILROY FINAL IS/ND | RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A-5 Brian Barnacle, Out-Think LLC 8.B.j Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) May 28, 2021 To: City of Gilroy ATTN: Miguel Contreras Re: The Cottages at Kern Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Mitigating Vehicle Miles Traveled Dear Mr. Contreras, Single passenger vehicle trips are largest source of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in California. More than 15% of vehicle trips are less than one mile and 80% are less than ten miles, presenting a tremendous opportunity to invest in mode shifting of local trips. Outthink LLC (Outthink) is piloting a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program (Program) in the City of Gilroy that will completely mitigate The Cottages at Kern’s (Project) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The Program uses transportation impact fees to fund e-bike programs for residents, particularly income-qualified residents. With seed funding from Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, Outthink is currently implementing a Program in the City of Gilroy. The Program outfits participants with a new electric bicycle (e-bike), safety equipment and accessories, encourages participants to choose their e-bikes instead of their car, monitors ridership, and gathers feedback about which roads and intersections feel unsafe. The Program has been running for about one month and the results are promising. To date, the four participants have ridden a combined 718 miles, about 7.0 miles per bike per day. Research from UC Davis found that about half of e-bike trips replace car trips1. Thus, if our early results are hold true over a year, these four e-bikes could provide about 9% of the total VMT that the Applicant needs to mitigate for its Project. We are expecting ridership to dip during hot and cold spells, but in general believe Gilroy is an outstanding climate for e-bikes to take hold. Table 1 provides a summary of early participation data in the Program. Notice the changes in resting heart rate, a potentially significant co-benefit of the program. Table 1: Early Results of City Chrysalis Pilot Program Person Total Days Riding Total Miles Traveled Average Miles per Day RHR Change (Beats per Minute) Raul L. (73) 30 447 14.9 -6 Raul M. (55) 21 128 6.1 -7 Cynthia (46) 30 58 1.92 -3 Hassan (65) 21 85 4.1 -10 Total / Average 102 718 7.0 -6.5 1 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3mm040km 8.B.j Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Outthink is asking the Applicant, City Staff, and the City Council to consider funding the expansion of Program as a VMT mitigation measure for Project. Outthink has engaged staff at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) who are focused on SB 743 implementation. They have been both intrigued by the approach and encouraging of the project. By choosing this type of program to mitigate this Project’s VMT, the City of Gilroy and the Applicant would be pioneering a solution to a widespread problem standing in the way of California’s housing and climate goals: mitigating VMT. Using conservative assumptions, 152 e-bikes would fully mitigate the Project’s VMT. Table 2 summarizes the Program’s key assumptions and fees. The Program exclusively serves income-qualified residents, actively monitors ridership, and guarantees VMT abatement. The data can be used to inform key assumptions about VMT abatement potential of e-bikes and the City of Gilroy’s active transportation planning efforts – and the residents served will be those who could not otherwise afford an e-bike. Table 2: City Chrysalis Program Summary that Fully Mitigates Project VMT Citywide Average VMT Per Capita 18.92 miles per day Project VMT Per Capita 18.89 miles per day Target VMT Per Capita to Satisfy OPR Guidance 16.08 miles per day Housing Units Proposed 29 single-family homes Drivers per Household 2.002 drivers per household Average E-bike Weekly Usage 153 miles per bike Mode Shift Miles 50%4 of total miles traveled VMT Abated Per Bike Per Year 390 miles per year Total Annual Miles Traveled by Project 399,901 miles per year Threshold of Significance 340,456 miles per year Annual VMT that Must Be Abated to Mitigate Project VMT 59,445 miles per year Bikes Needed to Mitigate Project VMT 152 class II bikes Equitable & Value-add Unit Cost $ 2,5005 per e-bike Protected Bike Parking $ 100,000 Impact Fee (VMT Monitored and Guaranteed) $ 481,060 Program highlights include: Guaranteed Reductions – Outthink commits to deliver 118,890 e-bike miles traveled per year for three years. If the Program does not achieve that number of miles traveled per year, Outthink will purchase and deploy additional e-bikes until the goal is met. 2 Assuming two drivers per household. Can be amended for local context. 3 The current pilot is averaging 49 miles per rider per week. This is 30% of the pilot’s average. 4 Using the UC Davis study linked in footnote 1. Other studies have found similar results and can be provided. 5 Includes e-bike, panier bag, light, lock, cable, and security device. Program Services Program management Participant recruitment Application processing Enrollment Equipment fitting Procurement (e-bike, accessories) Operator training and support Monitoring and reporting (3 years) 8.B.j Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) Commitment to Equity – For a period of six months after Program launch, Outthink’s recruitment exclusively targets residents who earn 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or below. If at the end of six months the e-bikes are not all spoken for by income-qualified residents, Outthink expands outreach to include residents that earn above 80% of AMI. Commitment to Data Sharing – One of the significant benefits of this program is the amount of GPS ride data that is generated. Biannually, Outthink will share anonymized ride data with the City of Gilroy to inform the City’s active transportation planning efforts. Ready to Get Started – With almost no promotion, the Program currently has over 30 income-qualified residents on the waiting list. With support to expand it in Gilroy, Outthink can initiate recruitment through allies such as MidPen Housing, Eden Housing, Danco Communities, County of Santa Clara Health and Human Services, South County Bike Coalition, Nueva Vida, large employers, Community Based Organizations, and social media. Outthink appreciates the City’s consideration our Program as a VMT mitigation measure. Creative approaches like this can help transform our transportation paradigm. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions about the Program and how it can mitigate VMT and improve community health and transportation equity in Gilroy. Imagine a future with more [e-]bikes than cars on Gilroy’s streets! Sincerely, Brian Barnacle Founder Outthink LLC Phone: (707) 373-6414 Email: brian.barnacle@out-think.com 8.B.j Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Response to Negative Declaration Comments (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH# 2021060179) FOR THE COTTAGES AT KERN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CONSISTING OF A ZONING AMENDMENT Z 20-06, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TM 20-06, AND ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW AS 20-20, FOR A SITE LOCATED AT 9130 & 9160 KERN AVE, APN 790-17-002 & -003. FILED BY D.R HORTON, 6683 OWENS DRIVE, PLEASANTON, CA 94588. WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, with the consent of the property owner(s) St. Francis Investment III and CRC Kern Investors, LLC, an application submitted by D.R. Horton requesting a Planned Unit Development zoning amendment (Z 20-06), and related AS 20-20 and TM 20-06 were accepted as complete, to allow a Planned Unit Development on the subject property; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH #2021060179) was prepared for the project in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and circulated for public review for 30 days; and WHEREAS, responses to comments received on the environmental document were prepared, resulting in no changes to the environmental document; and WHEREAS, on August, 5, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission of the city of Gilroy considered the project IS/ND environmental document, concurrent zone change request Z 20-06, Tentative Map request TM 20-06 and application AS 20-20 in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning ordinance Section’s 30.50.40, 30.50.41, 30.50.50 and 21.41, and adopted resolutions 2021-06, 2021-07 and 2021-08 unanimously recommending (5-0, 2 absent) the City Council adopt the IS/ND environmental document and the project zoning entitlements through a and recommended; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021, the City Council reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the project, together with the project zoning requests, and considered written and oral reports by staff and public testimony; and 8.B.k Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: CC Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -2- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings, adopting the negative declaration for the Cottages at Kern Residential Project (State Clearinghouse number: SCH# 2021060179): 1. Prior to taking action and approving the project the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the initial study/negative declaration and other information in the record. 2. As documented in the staff report and project record, the initial study/negative declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and consistent with the state and local guidelines and thresholds of significance. 3. The initial study/negative declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City as lead agency for the project. WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 is designated as the custodian for all documents related to this matter, including the negative declaration environmental document, which is available for review by any interested person. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City o f Gilroy hereby adopts Negative Declaration (SCH #2021060179) as the environmental document for the Cottages at Kern project. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: 8.B.k Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: CC Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -3- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 8.B.k Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: CC Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENT (Z 20-06) LOCATED AT 9130 & 9160 KERN AVE, APN 790-17-002 & -003. FILED BY D.R HORTON, 6683 OWENS DRIVE, PLEASANTON, CA 94588. WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, an application submitted by D.R. Horton requesting a Planned Unit Development zoning amendment (Z 20-06), and related AS 20-20 and TM 20-06 were accepted as complete, to allow a Planned Unit Development on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development requests deviations to the base Medium Density (R3) zone districts building setback and lot size standards; and WHEREAS, the developer proposes to provide a 0.12-acre private common area with two benches and a play structure, picnic area consisting of “turf”, public art, currently anticipated to be located adjacent to the development’s entry road landscaped front yards, private interior streets and sidewalks, public art near the new proposed public sidewalk along Kern Avenue, and common-area landscaping as Planned Unit Development amenities; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH #2021060179) was prepared for the project in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, said planned unit development design permit/zone change application Z 20- 06 and the related entitlement AS 20-20 and TM 20-06 were referred to various city departments, including the Technical Advisory Committee, for recommendations and conditions; and WHEREAS, on August, 5, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission of the city of Gilroy considered the project IS/ND environmental document, concurrent zone change request Z 20-06, Tentative Map request TM 20-06 and application AS 20-20 in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning ordinance Section’s 30.50.40, 30.50.41, 30.50.50 and 21.41, and adopted 8.B.l Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: CC Ordinance Z 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -2- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX resolutions 2021-06, 2021-07 and 2021-08 recommending the City Council adopt the IS/ND environmental document and the project zoning entitlements; and WHEREAS, the planned unit development permit Z 20-06 incorporates the plans, materials and conditions of the Architectural and Site Plan approval AS 20-20 and Tentative Map approval TM 20-06, by reference herein, which serves as the development plan and standards for project construction; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 5, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission took and considered the written and oral public testimony related to Zoning Text Amendment file number Z 20-06 and unanimously recommended (5-0, 2 absent) that the City Council approve said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 16, 2021, at which time the City Council took and considered written and oral public testimony, the staff report dated July 27, 2021, and all other documentation related to application Z 20-06; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The City Council finds that: i) The project conforms to the applicable Gilroy General Plan in that it proposes. residential development consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use density of 8-16 units per acre. ii) The project provides the type of development that will fill a specific need o f the surrounding area, consisting of small lot detached residential units that would be in keeping with the neighborhood character. iii) The project will not require urban services beyond those that are currently available to serve development of the site at the densities anticipated by the general plan. iv) The project provides a harmonious, integrated plan that justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this ordinance in order to accommodate the detached family housing units at the minimum required density range of 8.3 units per acre. v) The project reflects an economical and efficient pattern of land uses, as the small lot residential land use would comply with minimum parking standards, dimensions, setbacks, open space and project amenity requirements. vi) The project includes greater provisions for landscaping and open space than would generally be required. Residential landscape/open space requirements are 35% of the lot, 8.B.l Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: CC Ordinance Z 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -3- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX whereas with the project, all lots would provide at least a combined 48% landscape/open recreation areas. In addition to this the project proposes a 5,316 square foot (0.12 acre) open space area. vii) The project includes design standards and criteria that utilizes aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and open space areas that blend with the character of surrounding areas. viii) The project will not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas. ix) The project as proposed and conditioned provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary. SECTION II The Planned Unit Development permit, zone amendment, for The Cottages at Kern Residential project (APN: 790-17-002 & 003) amending the R3 PUD for a small lot residential development is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The development approval shall be implemented consistent with the plans and materials submitted for concurrent applications AS 20-20 and TM 20-06. 2. The approval is subject to all, restrictions and requirements established in Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.26 and 30.50.50 which address modifications, time limits, violations and revocations, and revisions. SECTION III If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise void or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. SECTION IV Pursuant to section 608 of the Charter of the City of Gilroy, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2021, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8.B.l Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: CC Ordinance Z 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) REV 7/31/2018 -4- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX APPROVED: Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 8.B.l Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: CC Ordinance Z 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TM 20-06), THE COTTAGES AT KERN, TO SUBDIVIDE 3.74 ACRES OF VACANT PROPERTY, TO CREATE 29 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, WITH 0.12 ACRES TO BE USED AS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND 0.82 ACRES TO BE USED FOR PRIVATE STREETS, LOCATED AT 9130 & 9160 KERN AVE, APN 790-17-002 & -003. FILED BY D.R HORTON, 6683 OWENS DRIVE, PLEASANTON, CA 94588. WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, with the consent of the property owner(s) St. Francis Investment III and CRC Kern Investors, LLC an application submitted by D.R. Horton requesting a tentative map to subdivide a 3.74 acre site into 29 single family residential lots with 0.12 acres of private open space, and 0.82 acres of private streets was accepted as complete; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH#2021060179), was prepared in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, on August 05, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Negative Declaration together with the project applications, at which public hearing the Commission, absent two Commissioners, by unanimous vote recommended to the City Council approval of application TM 20-06; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s Office; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has determined that the proposed project design complies with all required findings for approval of Vesting Tentative Map TM 20-06, presented below: 1. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map together with proposed improvements and site grading would not subject the site to undue flooding or inundation given that the site is not be located within a flood hazard zone, proposes drainage improvements in compliance with City flood management design standards, and will require site improvement plans to be submitted for review and installation in compliance with Engineering standards. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the City's Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act given that the lot pattern, density and design comply with the proposed R3 PUD zoning and City Engineering standards. 3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed project are available and adjacent to the site. 4. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general plan as specified in Section 65451. 5. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general medium density land use designation. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 6. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development which is intended for 8 to 16 unit per acre residential density. 7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or/and injure fish or wildlife or their habitat given that the site has no significant habitat that would be impacted. 8. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements, as proposed and conditioned will not cause serious public health problems given that the project shall be designed to comply with all fire, building, police and engineering requirements established protection and preservation of public health, safety welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby approves application TM 20-06 subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 8.B.m Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TM 20-06 PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT(S). 1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for Tentative Parcel Map TM 20-06 is granted to subdivide a 3.74-acre site into 29 lots, located at 9130/9160 Kern Avenue located on Assessor Parcel No. 790-17-002/003 as shown on Project Plans dated as received by the Planning Division on October 23, 2020, prepared by Ruggeri Jensen Azar (RJA) for D.R. Horton, dated October, 2020, and consisting of six (6) 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 building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2. RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to the findings and conditions of approval, and mitigation measures of AS 20-20 and Z 20-06 (i.e. related and/or concurrent entitlement requests). 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant. 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 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. SIGNS: No signs are approved as part of this application. Prior to issuance of a sign permit for this site, Developer shall propose well-designed, quality signs that comply with the allowances of the City Code and are to the satisfaction of the Community 8.B.m Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX Development Director or designee. 6. SIGNAGE: All signage advertising the development project or components thereof, including individual tenants or subdivisions, shall be installed or maintained onsite or offsite as allowed and in conformance with an approved sign permit. 7. WATER LIMITATIONS: Developer shall be advised that the approval is subject to the drought emergencies provisions pursuant to the Gilroy City Code Chapter 27.98. 8. MULTI-PHASE DEVELOPMENT: Construction of the project may be done in multiple phases, to be completed within approximately 25 months, as described below, and shown in the approved plan set. The construction phases are not separate and may overlap. The phases generally as follows: a. Phase 1 – Construction of 2 model homes and parking area adjacent to homes. b. Phase 2 – Construction of 12 homes, private roadway, and common area parcel. c. Phase 3 – Construction of 12 homes including all lots on Kern Ave. d. Phase 4 – Construction of 3 final homes and all remaining site improvements. The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 9. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision- maker. 10. HABITAT PERMIT: Concurrent with or prior to an application for a grading permit, Developer shall submit a Habitat Permit application to the City of Gilroy. The application shall consist of the application processing fee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application For Private Projects and Fees and Conditions Worksheet (available on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency website: https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/). The grading permit will be issued only after approval of the Habitat Plan permit and payment of assessed fees. The following conditions shall be met prior to the approval of the FINAL MAP or PARCEL MAP, or other deadline as specified in the condition. 11. TENTATIVE MAP: 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. 12. HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCATION: Developer shall establish a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for the development. The HOA 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the development. The City shall review all CC&Rs prior to recordation. 13. GARAGE USE: Garages shall be used for resident parking only. Storage or placement of any equipment, etc. shall not prevent use of garage for required vehicle parking (i.e., minimum parking dimensions shall remain clear for parking purposes. The use and availability of garage spaces for parking shall be specified in the project CC&R’s. 14. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS: Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the project property shall be consistent with the terms of this permit and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or this permit, the City Code or this permit shall prevail. 15. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP: This is a vesting tentative map subject to city code section 21.83.1 and the rights conferred by a vesting map, as provided under Chapter 4.5 (titled Development Rights) from the California Subdivision Map Act, shall be valid for a period of twelve (12) months beyond the recording of the final map. The following SPECIAL CONDITIONS shall be addressed as specified below. 16. ALL WEATHER PATH: Developer shall include on improvement plans an all-weather path extending, as a continuation, from the proposed new sidewalk to the nearest existing sidewalk south of the development (approximately 327 feet). Prior to Building Permit issuance, Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit, from the Public Works Department, for construction of the above-mentioned all-weather path. Prior to requesting an encroachment permit from the City; developer shall provide notice to all effected property owners. Prior to occupancy or initiation of any use, the above-mentioned all-weather path shall be established. 17. IMPROVEMENT OF PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Prior to Final Map recordation, Developer shall explore feasibility of providing a pedestrian walkway north to Antonio Del Buono Elementary School from the project site, by extending the project’s sidewalk to the West Branch Llagas Creek Connector Trail. If feasible, per the City’s Public Works Department and Santa Clara County, Developer shall include this connection as part of improvement plans. The following STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL shall apply to the development of the site during all phases of construction. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 18. USE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THAT HAS LOW DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXHAUST EMISSIONS: During any construction period the applicant shall prepare a plan to reduce emissions such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit. The following feasible measures to achieve a 66 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust (in comparison to the emissions from uncontrolled equipment) could involve the following: • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). • The use of construction equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control. • The use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 19. DUST AND EXHAUST CONTROLS. During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices required for all projects: 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 off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-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 shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 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. Clear signage, that provides regulations for idling times, 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 mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 20. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PROTECTION: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to confirm that the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and American badger are not on the project site. If any of these species are identified onsite or an area affected by construction, the requirements of USFWS and/or CDFW shall be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts, including but not limited to the installation and monitoring of exclusionary fencing, an education training for all contractors working on site, and on- site monitoring by a qualified biologist or trained biological monitor. 21. WETLANDS PERMITS: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits and clearances from Federal, State, and regional agencies for affects to the identified seasonal wetland. Evidence of permit issuance shall be provided to the Planning Division. 22. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Prior to grading or excavation on the Project site, the applicant shall hire a qualified professional archaeologist (i.e., one who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications for archaeology or one under the supervision of such a professional) to monitor all ground disturbing activities, to the extent determined necessary by the archaeologist. In the event that any prehistoric or historic- period subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including darkened soil (midden), that could conceal cultural deposits, animal bone, obsidian and/or mortar are discovered during earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately, and the Planning and Building Divisions shall be notified within 24 hours. City staff may consult with the project archeologist to assess the significance of the find. If Native American archaeological, ethnographic, or spiritual resources are discovered, all identification and treatment of the resources shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. If tribal cultural representatives identified he NAHC fail to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall either rebury all Native American tribal cultural resources on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance, or be handled in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation and acceptable to the Planning and Building Divisions. 23. ENERGY EFFICIENCY: During the approval and construction phases, the Project will be required to comply with the Requirements contained in Title 24 Energy Efficiency, contained in Chapter 6 of the Gilroy Municipal Code. 24. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submittal of a final geotechnical investigation will be required. The 8.B.m Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX recommendations contained in the final investigation will minimize the impacts from geologic and soil hazards. 25. WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION: Implementation of the requirements of Article XXXVIII. Landscaping, Water Efficiency, and Storm Water Retention and Treatment will reduce water use. 26. PROPER CLOSURE OF ABANDONED WELLS: The Project will comply with the provisions of Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance No. 90-1 regulating the classification, construction and destruction of wells and other deep excavations; requiring the destruction of abandoned or unused wells; adopting water contamination hazard standards; and making violation a misdemeanor ENGINEERING CONDITIONS The following General Engineering Conditions shall be satisfied. 1. GENERAL - Improvement plans (as second sheet in plan set) shall contain Approved Conditions of Approval. 2. GENERAL - Improvement plans shall include General Notes found in the City of Gilroy General Guidelines. A complete set of improvement plans shall consist of Civil site design, landscape site design, Electrical, Joint Trench. Any walls or structural features part of the landscape design shall also be included. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. GENERAL – Improvement plans are required for both on-site and off-site improvements. A separate plan set for each shall be prepared, or at the approval of the City Engineer, onsite and offsite sheets can be combined into one plan set. 6. GENERAL - Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles removed along the property frontage. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 7. 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. 8. GENERAL – Developer is required to confirm the location of existing utility lines along the project frontage by potholing. Prior to any potholing, developer shall submit a pothole plan for City review and approval. Developer shall provide the pothole result to the City Engineer prior to final design. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. GENERAL - Prior to submittal of improvement plans, developer shall submit for City approval water, sewer, and storm drain studies for the development. These studies shall provide supporting hydraulic calculation for pipe sizing per City standard design guideline. 12. FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of Impact Fees is required at first permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading and improvement plans shall identify the vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor. 19. GRADING & DRAINGE - Improvement and grading plans shall show existing topo and features at least 50’ beyond the project boundary. Clearly show existing topo, label contour elevations, drainage patterns, flow lines, slopes, and all other property encumbrances. 20. 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. 21. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal and all new improvements that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 22. CONSTRUCTION - All construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and billed at the current hydrant meter rate. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the public right of way. 31. UTILTIES - The Developer/Contractor shall make accessible any or all City utilities as directed by the Public Works Director. The following PROJECT SPECIFIC ENGINEERING Conditions of Approval shall be addressed. 32. FEE – The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. The following are approximate impact fees based on planning phase information for a Residential - High Density project. Actual fees will be based on Final Design information. a. Street Tree Development = $185 b. Storm Development = $3,405 c. Sewer Development = $202,043 d. Water Development = $51,881 e. Traffic Impact = $296,989 f. Public Facilities = $535,746 Latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of Impact Fees are required at first building permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy. 33. 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. 34. GENERAL - No building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is recorded. 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 38. GENERAL - No private walls, signage, poles, utilities, etc. allowed in PSE/PUE. 39. GENERAL - At first submittal, developer shall provide a Geotechnical report that includes pavement section recommendations for all public and private street pavement sections. 40. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved project’s design level geotechnical report. All grading activities shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a licensed geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the City of Gilroy for each phase of construction, stating that all grading activities were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project’s geotechnical report. The developer shall add this condition to the general notes on the grading plan. 41. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – At first improvement plan submittal, the design of Kern Ave roadway shall be per City Standards. 42. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - All work in the public right of way, or for pubic 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. 43. 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. 44. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS –All improvements must be built to the city Engineer’s satisfaction and accepted by the City prior to issuance of any first certificate of occupancy for the project. 45. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - All frontage improvements Along Kern Ave. (In public right of way and easements) shall be constructed with the First Final Map and Improvement Plans. 46. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – At first plan submittal, provide all sight distance exhibits showing adequate sight distance. 47. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – The project is making new pavement cuts on Kern Ave which reduces the City Pavement Condition Index. The project shall grind and pave the entire width of Kern Ave (Lip of Gutter to Lip of Gutter) along project frontage with a minimum 2.5” hot mix AC, and with pavement section dig-outs and repairs. Extend of the dig-outs and repairs to be determined by the Developers Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer. 48. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, or at least once a day. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. CONSTRUCTION - All public improvements, including the complete installation of all improvements relative to streets, fencing, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water system, underground utilities, etc., shall be completed and attested to by the City Engineer before approval of occupancy of any unit. Where facilities of other agencies are involved, such installation shall be verified as having been completed and accepted by those agencies. 52. 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). 53. TRANSPORTATION – At first plan submittal, developer shall submit on-site and off-site photometric plans. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. TRANSPORTATION – Applicant shall obtain a review letter from Recology confirming serviceability and site accessibility of solid waste pickup, No public right of way areas to be used for solid waste pickup. Contact Lisa Patton, Operations Manager 408-846-4421. Include Recology review letter with first building permit submittal. 57. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 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. 58. TRANSPORTATION – The proposed street knuckle design shall be per City Standards. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. UTILITIES – Storm, sewer, and water lines in private areas shall be privately owned and maintained. This should be noted on the title sheet of the project improvement plan. 63. 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. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 64. UTILITIES - Sanitary sewer laterals and/or water meters located in driveways shall have traffic rated boxes and lids. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. UTILITIES – Developer is required to evaluate the conditions of the existing utility lines along the project frontage by videotaping and providing the result to the City Engineer. If the integrity of existing utilities found to be compromised, developer will be required to repair, or remove and replace if necessary, to the City Engineer satisfaction. 68. UTILTIES - All mainline storm drain piping shall have a minimum diameter of 18 inches and the lateral connections shall have a minimum diameter of 15 inches. 69. UTILITIES - Developer shall provide a separate irrigation water service, meter, and backflow preventer for this development. 70. UTILITIES – Developer shall provide a separate water service, meter, and backflow preventer for this development. 71. UTILITIES – Install new Public Fire Hydrants along Kern Ave project frontage per City standard and guidelines. 72. UTILTIIES – Only residences fronting Kern Ave will be allowed to connect to the public water line along Kern Ave. 73. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX on-site including those areas that are not bioretention areas. This stormwater control plan report format does not replace or is not in lieu of any stormwater control plan sheet in improvement plans. b. The stormwater control plan shall include a signed Performance Requirement Certifications specified in the Stormwater Guidance Manual. c. At developer’s sole expense, the stormwater control plan shall be submitted for review by an independent third party accepted by the City for compliance. Result of the peer review shall be included with the submittal for City evaluation. d. Prior to plan approval, the Developer of the site shall enter into a formal written Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B. i. The City shall record this agreement against the property or properties involved and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by the stormwater management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public Works Engineering. ii. This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of the proposed modification or maintenance activity. iii. This Agreement shall also provide that in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety, the city shall have the authority to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner. iv. All on-site stormwater management facilities shall be operated and maintained in good condition and promptly repaired/replaced by the property owner(s) or other legal entity approved by the City. v. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in accordance with City-approved plans. vi. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance schedule for the life of any stormwater management facility and shall describe the maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and who shall perform the maintenance. This maintenance schedule shall be included with the approved Stormwater Runoff Management Plan. e. Stormwater BMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall include inspections to be required for this project and shall adhere to the following: i. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all stormwater management facilities inspected for condition and function by a certified third party QSP or QSD. ii. Stormwater facility inspections shall be done at least twice per year, once in Fall by October 1st, in preparation for the wet season, and once in Winter by 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; 8.B.m Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 6. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and 7. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection. f. Upon completion of each inspection, an inspection report shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering no later than October 1st for the Fall report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report. g. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the developer shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and provide evidence of filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board. 74. 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. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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. 78. 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 documents (including reports, technical data, plans, etc.) for the Regional Board approval. 79. STORMWATER - Plans must demonstrate there is no hydraulic impact to the properties on the north due to this development. 80. STORMWATER – Overland drainage release for this development shall be directed to the public right of way. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 81. STORMWATER – Additional stormwater runoff from this development shall be mitigated on-site. 82. STORMWATER – All stormwater from Kern Ave shall be contained within the Kern Ave curb and gutter. 83. LANDSCAPING - Landscaping plans shall not conflict with the stormwater management water treatment plan. 84. LANDSAPING – The proposed landscaping along the project public street frontages are maintained by project HOA. Landscape plan will clearly show and identify limits of HOA responsibilities. 85. 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. 86. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – At first improvement plan submittal, plans must show accurate topographic survey including the new paving and striping along all public and private streets. 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Prior to building occupancy, developer shall submit for review and approval all of the items identified in the Public Works Department “Development Project Closeout” list. 90. FINAL MAP - The tentative map and 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. 91. 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 8.B.m Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 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. 92. 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. All private easements shall be recorded and the recording information shown on the Final Map. 93. OTHER AGENCIES – An existing waterway 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 this waterway. 94. TRAFFIC - The Project shall mitigate for all traffic deficiencies and recommended improvements identified in the project’s Traffic Study. The Project shall comply with all the traffic related mitigation measures identified in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and contained within the adopted CEQA document. The following VALLEY WATER CONDITIONS shall be addressed. 95. This This site is in the Upper Miller Slough watershed and storm drainage shall be directed to Upper Miller Slough via the city storm drain system. Provide storm drain plans demonstrating that the runoff from the site development will be directed to Upper Miller Slough, not Lions Creek (located to the north), or as otherwise approved by Valley Water. 96. The application and site plan topography indicates there is a Water of the US and Water of the State on the site. The applicant shall obtain permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit), the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 water quality certification) and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to issuance of building or grading permit whichever comes first. 8.B.m Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: CC Resolution TM 20-06 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW AS 20-20, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE COTTAGES AT KERN RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 9130/9160 KERN AVENUES (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 790-17-002/003. FILED BY D.R. HORTON 6883 OWENS DR. PLEASANTON, CA 94588. WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, applications submitted by D.R. Horton including Architectural and Site Review (AS 20-20) to approve the architectural and site design of the Cottages at Kern residential project were deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has considered the Architectural and Site Review request, AS 20-20, together with concurrent entitlements for a PUD rezoning Z 20-06 and TM 20-06, in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable standards; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH #2021060179), was prepared for the project in full accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, on August 05, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Negative Declaration together with the project applications, at which public hearing the Commission , absent two Commissioners, by unanimous vote recommended to the City Council approval of application AS 20-20; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s Office; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has determined that the proposed project design complies with all required findings for approval of an Architectural and Site Review or a Planned Unit Development, as follows: A. The proposed development/use is permitted in conformance with the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance and other adopted policies of the City of Gilroy, given that the lot pattern, density and design comply with the proposed R3 PUD zoning and City Engineering standards. B. The proposed development/use would be consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Gilroy General Plan given that the is located in an area that is designated for residential development and the proposal meets the desired density range and is in conformance with development standards. C. The proposed development/use would not impair the integrity and character of the area surrounding and in the vicinity of the subject property, given that the small lot detached residential units that would be in keeping with the neighborhood character. 8.B.n Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX D. The subject site would be served by streets and highways adequate in width and structure to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use will generate given that Kern Ave. is an improved collector street designed for the proposed volume of traffic. E. The subject site would be provided with adequate sewerage, water, fire protection and storm drainage facilities given that, public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed project are available and adjacent to the site. F. The proposed development/use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structure or to the public health, safety or general welfare, given that the project shall be designed to comply with all fire, building, police and engineering requirements established protection and preservation of public health, safety welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby approves application AS 20-20 subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 8.B.n Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS 20-20 PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT(S). 1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for AS 20-20 is granted to construct 29 Single family homes consistent with the properties PUD approval and consisting of three floor plans, ranging from 1,544 square feet-1,917 square feet and attached 2-car garage, three (3) architectural styles (Farmhouse, Traditional and Spanish), front yard landscaping on all lots, 0.12 acres of landscaped open space with play structure, site entry enhanced with masonry wall and decorative pavers located on Assessor Parcel No. 790-17-002/003,as shown on Project Plans dated as received by the Planning Division on October 23, 2020, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (RJA) , dated October 22, 2020, and consisting of seven (7) 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 building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval is one year from the date of recordation of the Final Map for TM 20-06. Building permits must be obtained for the project within one (1) year from that date, and may occur within the Phasing Plan timeframes. Otherwise this approval shall expire unless a timely extension has been obtained. Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code. 3. RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to the findings and conditions of approval, and mitigation measures of Z 20-06 and TM 20-06 (i.e. related and/or concurrent entitlement requests). If the zoning amendment is not adopted or the tentative map application expires, this approval shall be null and void. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant. 8.B.n Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX 5. INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process. 6. SIGNS: No signs are approved as part of this application. Prior to issuance of a sign permit for this site, Developer shall propose well-designed, quality signs that comply with the allowances of the City Code and are to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee. 7. SIGNAGE: All signage advertising the development project or components thereof, including individual tenants or subdivisions, shall be installed or maintained onsite or offsite as allowed and in conformance with an approved sign permit. 8. 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. 9. MULTI-PHASE DEVELOPMENT: Construction of the project may be done in multiple phases, to be completed within approximately 25 months, as described below, and shown in the approved plan set. The construction phases are not separate and may overlap. The phases generally as follows: a. Phase 1 – Construction of 2 model homes and parking area adjacent to homes. b. Phase 2 – Construction of 12 homes, private roadway, and common area parcel. c. Phase 3 – Construction of 12 homes including all lots on Kern Ave. d. Phase 4 – Construction of 3 final homes and all remaining site improvements. The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 10. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision- maker. 11. CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING PERMIT PLANS: The project architect shall certify in writing that the architectural design shown in the building permit plans match the plans approved by the Community Development Director or designee/Planning Commission/City Council. Any changes must be clearly noted. The project architect shall also certify that the structural plans are consistent with the architectural plans. In the event 8.B.n Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX of a discrepancy between the structural plans and the architectural plans, the architectural plans shall take precedence, and revised structural drawings shall be submitted to the Building Division. 12. COLORS AND MATERIALS: Plans submitted for building permit applications shall include all exterior building materials and colors, including product and finish manufacturer name, color name and number, and surface finish type (e.g. stucco with sand finish, plaster with smooth finish) to be used in construction. 13. SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS: Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including but not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas, model home sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications. Developer shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or issuance, as applicable. 14. PUBLIC ART: Prior to issuance of building permits, submit a process, timetable, and evidence of commitment acceptable to the City to ensure installation of a suitable, significant piece of public-oriented sculpture or similar public art installation prior to occupancy. This shall include involving the Community Development Director or designee in reviewing preliminary concepts, artist, and type of work. All public art must be reviewed and approved by the City of Gilroy Arts and Culture Commission and approved for installation with first phase of construction. 15. HABITAT PERMIT: Concurrent with or prior to an application for a grading permit, Developer shall submit a Habitat Permit application to the City of Gilroy. The application shall consist of the application processing fee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application For Private Projects and Fees and Conditions Worksheet (available on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency website: https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/). The grading permit will be issued only after approval of the Habitat Plan permit and payment of assessed fees. 16. PAYMENT OF FEES: Developer shall pay all required development impact fees prior to issuance of permits. This includes required park in lieu fees, school fees, traffic impact fees, etc. 17. GARAGE DOORS: Developer shall provide automatic garage door openers for all garages. All garage entries shall be equipped with a sectional roll-up garage door. 18. FENCES AND WALLS: All fencing and walls are to be shown on construction drawings submitted for building permit review and shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, measured from adjacent grade to the top of the fence or wall. The design and location must comply with all setback requirements. 19. REFUSE STORAGE: Developer shall show on construction documents a minimum 9- foot by 3-foot level concrete pad for storage of three refuse containers in the side yard area 8.B.n Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX or other location approved by the Community Development Director or designee that is out of view from the street. The storage location shall not be within the garage. Developer shall also provide for a paved path from the storage location to the pick-up area (typically the street) that does not require entering the garage. All gates or doors along the path shall be constructed with a minimum clear space of 36-inches to allow passage of the containers. 20. RAIN GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS: Developer shall install all roof and building rain gutters and downspouts, vents, and flashing to integrate as closely as possible with building design elements, including matching the color of the adjacent surface. 21. LANDSCAPE MULCH: As part of the Landscape Plan submittal, Developer shall clarify a minimum three (3) inch layer of mulch to be applied on all exposed soil surfaces, as required by the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). 22. INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES: Developer shall not include any invasive plant species, such as those listed by the California Invasive Plant Council. 23. LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE: Prior to issuance of building permits or initiation of the proposed use, whichever comes first, Developer shall submit a completed Landscape Documentation Package, including a soil analysis/management report along with appropriate application review fees, to the Community Development Department, including required documentation for compliance verification, and obtain approval of such plans. 24. IRRIGATION SENSORS: Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall (as part of the irrigation system) indicate on construction drawings sensors that suspend or alter irrigation operation during unfavorable weather conditions (e.g. automatic rain shut-off devices). 25. PRECONSTRUCTION NESTING BIRD SURVEY: To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows: “The Developer shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500’ for active nests – with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds – if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the project applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100’ for 8.B.n Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX perching birds and 300’ for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.” 26. DOCUMENTATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE: Prior to issuance of building permit for any work being done on the historic structure, the applicant shall provide the following documentation: a. Two copies of each historical assessment, if applicable; and b. Two complete sets of photographs of the existing property (including the immediate neighborhood to establish context), the site (including any non-historic structures), all exterior elevations and features, and all interior spaces and features. The applicant shall utilize a 35-mm camera with black and white film only. The photographs shall be printed on fiber paper, and all negatives and prints must meet the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Photographic Standards for archival processing. The following conditions shall be met prior to RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL INSPECTION, or ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 27. ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to occupancy, Developer shall complete all required offsite and onsite improvements related to the project, including structures, paving, and landscaping, unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development Director, or stated in these conditions. 28. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION: Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or building permit final sign-off, Developer shall complete installation of all landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans. 29. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION: Prior to occupancy or initiation of the proposed use, or completion of each build-out phase of development, Developer shall submit a signed Certificate of Completion, along with all necessary supporting documentation and payment to the Community Development Department, for compliance verification of the landscape installation. Developer is required under the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) to provide a copy of the approved Certificate of Completion to the property owner or his or her designee. 30. PLANNING INSPECTION: Inspection(s) by the Planning Division may be required for the foundation, framing, application of exterior materials, and final completion of each structure to ensure that the construction matches the approved plans. 31. SITE CLEAN-UP: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Developer shall 8.B.n Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX remove all construction materials, debris, and vehicles from the subject property. 32. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENITIES: In compliance with the Planned Unit Development Combining District (City Code 30.26), the Developer is required to provide a higher standard of amenities than a standard development, which at a minimum shall consist of enhanced project entry with a precast masonry wall and decorative pavement; areas set aside to incorporate public art; variation in architecture styles, elevations and exterior materials; extensive landscaping throughout the development; 0.12 acres of common/open space including “tot-lot”, two benches and picknick area. Final details of the amenities must be reviewed by the Planning Division for compliance with this condition and approved during building permit review, and completed prior to occupancy of the first unit. The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 33. CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site: a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays; b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; c. Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; d. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; e. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; f. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and g. Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.” 34. CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential construction- related impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on 8.B.n Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.” 35. DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the Developer will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; b. Contractor will stockpile soil during development activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; c. Contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate filed screening instrumentation; d. Contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; e. Contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and 8.B.n Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX f. Contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed. 36. DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50’ of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. 37. DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event of an accidental discovery of archaeological resources during grading or construction activities, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site: “If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.” 38. DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Developer shall include the following language in all grading, site work, and construction plans: “If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not 8.B.n Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.” The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES that the use permitted by this entitlement occupies the premises. 39. ADDITIONS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND PATIO COVERS: Building additions and patio covers shall conform to the zoning district or PUD approval, as applicable. 40. GARAGE USE: Garages shall be used for resident parking only. Storage or placement of any equipment, etc. shall not prevent use of garage for required vehicle parking (i.e., minimum parking dimensions shall remain clear for parking purposes). The use and availability of garage spaces for parking shall be specified in the project CC&R’s. 41. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: For the life of the project, Developer shall maintain landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans, except as otherwise permitted or required by law. Significant changes to the number, placement, and selection of plant species may require a modification to this approval, to be determined by the Community Development Director or designee. 42. CLIPPER CARD: Developer shall provide new owners, at the close of escrow, a public transportation Clipper Card, pre-loaded with $100. The development’s CC&Rs shall include a provision that requires the HOA to load said card with an additional $100 per year. 43. STREET TREES: Developer shall provide an alternate street tree plan on Kern Avenue, proposing a tree species that is on the City’s street tree list; excluding Crape Myrtle. 8.B.n Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: CC Resolution AS 20-20 (3380 : The Cottages at Kern) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Appointments to Fill Vacancies on Boards & Commissions Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: City Clerk Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips Prepared By: LeeAnn McPhillips Anne Bybee Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability  Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Appoint members to the vacant seats on the Arts & Culture Commission, Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Library Commission, and Physically Challenged Board of Appeals BACKGROUND The City Council opened a recruitment for vacancies on various boards and commissions with applications due on July 23, 2021. The City Council reviewed the applications and conducted interviews on August 2, 2021. The following applicants are available for appointment to the open seats on the below noted Boards & Commissions: 9.A Packet Pg. 425 Board/Commission # of seats open Candidate for Possible Appointment Arts & Culture Commission 1 seat with a term ending 12/31/2022 Lisa Carter Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 1 seat with a term ending 12/31/2023 Carissa Purnell Library Commission 1 seat with a term ending 12/31/2024 Gabriella Kim Physically Challenged Board of Appeals 2 seats; terms ending 12/31/2023 and 12/31/2024 Tracy Stephens CONCLUSION For any seats not filled on the above referenced Boards & Commissions, staff will continue to seek applicants and schedule future Council interviews. Attachments: 1. Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 9.A Packet Pg. 426 9.A.a Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & 9.A.a Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Board and Commission Applications for Potential Appointment on August 16, 2021 (3417 : Appointments to Boards & City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Customer Service Strategy Metrics, Implementation Measures, and Timelines Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Community Development Department Submitted By: Karen Garner Prepared By: Julie Wyrick Julie Wyrick Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Receive Report and provide feedback. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Development Department Customer Service Strategy was introduced to the City Council on March 15, 2021. Staff presented the overall framework, tasks, and goals of the strategy, as well as the Customer Service Vision and Customer Bill of Rights. The next steps were to identify metrics, develop implementation measures, and assign timelines to each task. The following tasks are included in the Customer Service Strategy: 1. Identify Our Target Audience 10.A Packet Pg. 437 2. Analyze the Needs of Our Target Audience 3. Create a Customer Service Vision 4. Set Clear and Attainable Goals 5. Get and Respond to Feedback 6. Reinforce Good Customer Service 7. Create Administrative Remedies when Customer Service Goals are not Met Different metrics apply to each unique task. Similarly, each task may have different implementation measures, under varying implementation timelines. Metrics are how staff intends to measure the success of the task and establish a continual feedback loop to ensure current data. Metrics for the Customer Service Strategy may include time to resolution of a problem, level of customer satisfaction, and other data such as fees, number of inspections, number of applications processed, and number of concerns elevated to management. An implementation measure is a specific task or action carried out to achieve the goals of the Customer Service Strategy. They include such things as: • Polling customers through surveys and phone calls to understand satisfacti on levels, • Evaluating processes on a regular basis to ensure they are being executed accurately and efficiently, • Creating a training program for staff with regular check-ins and assessments, and • Implementing technology improvements including the new Land Management System (LMS) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System, EnerGov and Munis, respectively. The timelines reflect both the amount of time anticipated to complete the implementation measures as well as the frequency for recurring tasks. Timelines can be for one-time tasks as well as ongoing implementation on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual, or biennial basis, or as needed. For example, implementation of EnerGov and Munis are one-time tasks to complete, but the software supports ongoing metrics and implementation measures including collecting and analyzing data from workflow processes, time to project completion, or volume of applications. These metrics, implementation measures, and timelines collectively help measure the success of the customer service strategy. The data collected can be compared month to month, and year to year, to qualify and quantify how the department is improving. ANALYSIS 10.A Packet Pg. 438 Each task outlined in the Customer Service Strategy includes distinct goals for the Community Development Department to reach. The metrics, implementation measures and implementation timelines define how those goals will be reached, by when, and how staff will measure success. Identify Our Target Audience Primarily, the customers of the Community Development Department are residents, property owners, business owners, employees, and visitors. Additionally, other agency staff and internal staff are also customers. Our customers can change depending on the project, the time of year, or other variables. It is important that we check-in from time to time to make sure we know our audience and can be responsive to their needs. Staff needs to recognize the different needs of a homeowner who comes to City Hall for the first time, versus a seasoned developer. The following metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines will ensure the Community Development Department knows who their customers and maintains constant communication. Analyze the Needs of Our Target Audience After identifying the target audience, staff must analyze customer needs to understand what it is they want from the Community Development Department. We know that our customers expect to be treated fairly and in a courteous manner, that their questions or concerns are heard and answered, that they receive information resulting in regulatory certainly and a path to project completion, that staff is responsive and timely with that information, and there is a path to solution should there be challenges along the way. These expectations are identified in the Customer Service Vision, are outlined in the Customer Bill of Rights, and will be the cornerstone to future Customer Service training. Additionally, the needs of our customers may be expected to change over time, depending on a specific project, the economy, or development trends. Staff should Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • The different types of customers who interact with the Department. Knowing who these individuals or groups are, how they operate, and what they need will help tailor staff’s services. • Analyze data from Customer Service Surveys and other feedback devices (concerns/compliments, follow-up phone calls with customers, staff interviews) to determine unique needs of customers by customer type • Analyze data from Customer Service Surveys and other feedback devices as they come in or at minimum on a monthly basis – MONTHLY 10.A Packet Pg. 439 continually check in with customers to understand the changing environment and how that may change their needs. The following metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines will ensure the City is up to date and responsive to our customer needs. Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • Availability and accuracy of materials available to the public through the City’s website • Update process flow charts to public on website • Create an example workflow with submittal requirements for a Planning/Building permit – Model Submittal • Update forms and online resources as regulations change – AS NEEDED • Check all website documents for accuracy - QUARTERLY • Create sample workflow by end FY Q1 • Confidence of Customer Services Staff in information they are providing • Implement EnerGov for easier access to information for public and staff • Update Zoning Code with clear and concise language • Continue EnerGov configuration for “go live” by end of 2021 • Update Zoning Code by end of 2021 • Time (hours/days) to resolution of problem or receipt of information • Include Customer Service Survey link in all email correspondence and automate through EnerGov • Implement milestone meetings with applicants at major steps of project process (Planning Approval, Building Permit Submittal, Building Permit Issuance, Pre- Construction, Final Inspection, etc.) • Track time from initial contact to issue resolution by logging information • Draft customer service survey by end of FY Q1 • Implement milestone meetings IMMEDIATELY AND AS NEEDED • Track counter inquiries and response times IMMEDIATELY AND AS NEEDED • Fees reflective of staff • Update fees on biennial basis with budget • Review fees ANNUALLY and update 10.A Packet Pg. 440 time and material costs adoption • Create an online fee calculator either through EnerGov or other method BIENNIALLY • Determine if fee calculator is part of ENERGOV or if need to create a separate version – IMMEDIATELY Create a Customer Service Vision At a previous City Council meeting, a Draft Customer Service Vision was presented: The City of Gilroy delivers services in a fair, courteous, and timely manner that ensures transparency of process and provides regulatory certainty. Additionally, a Draft Customer Service Bill of Rights was presented, identifying five “rights” to the development community: 1. The Right to Fair and Courteous Treatment 2. The Right to be Heard 3. The Right to Regulatory Certainly 4. The Right to Responsive Service 5. The Right to Administrative Remedies These statements and promises help to shape the Customer Service Strategy and provide a framework for staff to work with customers. The Vision and Customer Bill of Rights should be revisited with staff often to reinforce the message and goals of the Customer Service Strategy and provide good, quality service to our customers. Through technology and advancements in efficiency in permit processing, as well as ongoing training opportunities, staff can continually improve interactions with the public. The following metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines will ensure customer service is at the front of everyone’s minds when serving as a city employee. Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • Level of customer satisfaction • Create Customer Bill of Rights to execute the Customer Service Vision • Review Vision with all team members • Create Customer • Draft Customer Bill of Rights – COMPLETE • Review Vision and Bill of Rights at every training opportunity - AS 10.A Packet Pg. 441 Service “tailgate meetings” with activities for staff. Highlight one area of Bill of Rights to focus • Auto-generate surveys through EnerGov NEEDED • Hold tailgate meetings at least quarterly or after an issue arises – QUARTERLY AND AS NEEDED • Implement surveys through EnerGov at time of implementation of software • Number of repeat customers • Run reports through EnerGov on number of permits pulled by applicant • Run reports - ANNUALLY Set Clear and Attainable Goals To implement the Customer Service Vision and uphold the Customer Bill of Rights, Community Development Department staff must have clear and attainable goals to meet. The goal is to have a satisfied customer, and there are many ways to meet that end goal. Customer service training materials and tools such as the new EnerGov LMS will help staff meet the expectations of the customers by providing transparency of the process and allowing the customer to participate each step of the way. Success will be measured by the following metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines. Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • Staff comprehension of Customer Service Strategy • Work with Human Resources to create a Customer Service Training Manual • Align Employee Performance Evaluations with Customer Service Goals for staff • Create Customer Service Training Manual and performance evaluations including customer service measurements that are reflective of new Customer Service Goals – COMPLETE DRAFT WITHIN FY 21/22 • Level of customer satisfaction • Review individual staff feedback with staff during 1:1 meetings. Establish goals for improvement as needed • Review feedback as it comes in – IMMEDIATE AND AS NEEDED 10.A Packet Pg. 442 • Time to permit issuance • Tailor EnerGov reports and dashboard to show data related to project timelines • Implement dashboard data through EnerGov at time of implementation of software Get and Respond to Feedback A critical step in the Customer Service Strategy is the feedback loop. Staff will listen to feedback from the public and use that feedback to improve processes and develop training. Feedback can come from all kinds of sources, including direct conversations with applicants, survey responses, conversations with staff and elected officials, and more. With this feedback, staff can adjust our approach to projects, customers, and the process in general. This feedback can be measured by the following metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines. Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • Level of customer satisfaction • Listen to customers through surveys, polls, on social media, in focus groups, and conversations with staff • Track positive and negative feedback to understand where issues arise • Implement surveys through EnerGov at time of implementation of software • Create new avenues for feedback WITHIN ONE YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION • Review feedback as it comes in – IMMEDIATE AND AS NEEDED • Number of repeat customers • Track data month to month to follow trends/volume of permits • Run reports - MONTHLY • Type of feedback received • Meet with staff to get their feedback on Customer Service Program • Include a recurring Customer Service Agenda Item during staff and one on one meetings. Reinforce Good Customer Service 10.A Packet Pg. 443 Good customer service should be reinforced to help create a positive work environment. A job well done should be rewarded, and negative feedback should result in training modifications and process improvements. The following metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines will indicate and measure the department’s success in implementing and maintaining good customer service through the tools and training provided to staff. Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • Morale of staff • Share both positive and negative feedback with individual team members. • Share positive feedback to group to encourage good customer service. • Create a recognition program • Review and share feedback – IMMEDIATE AND AS NEEDED • Create recognition program WITHIN ONE YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION • Level of customer satisfaction • Track positive and negative feedback to understand where issues arise. • Track feedback on an ongoing basis - AS NEEDED • Number of repeat customers • Track data month to month to follow trends/volume of permits • Run reports - MONTHLY • Feedback received at training sessions, staff meetings, and one on one meetings. • Provide reports to Director/City Administrator as to how we are meeting values, Vision, and Customer Bill of Rights. • Report to Director/City Administrator - QUARTERLY Create Administrative Remedies when Customer Service Goals are not Met A formalized process to elevate customer concerns to the Customer Services Manager, or appropriate manager/director is being developed to provide administrative remedies to customers who feel the Community Development Department has not met their needs or expectations. This process will be structured to resolve a situation in the most expedient manner, without compromising the City’s rules, regulations and processes, or the process for other customers. The following metrics, implementation measures, and 10.A Packet Pg. 444 implementation timelines will hold city staff accountable to their actions and identify needed improvements to the process. Metrics Implementation Measures Timeline • Number of cases elevated to the Customer Service Manager • Create CustomerServices@cityofgilroy email account to be monitored by Customer Services Division Manager/Staff • Publish Customer Bill of Rights and Customer Services Manager contact information on website, in survey documents, and at City Hall • Create email account – IMMEDIATE • Publish contact information to Community Development webpage immediately - COMPLETE • Time from concern to resolution • Create a Post Incident Analysis process to understand issue and find solutions to avoid similar situations in the future. • Draft Post Incident Analysis process by end of FY Q2 These metrics, implementation measures, and implementation timelines are dynamic and can be changed, augmented, or deleted, and new metrics and associated implementation can be introduced. The measures outlined above are a beginning point. The implementation of the Customer Service Strategy is a fluid process that should be responsive to the feedback received. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The new Customer Services Division was created with existing staff within the Community Development, and the creation of a Customer Services Manager as part of the ‘General Fund Financial Recovery Plan’ was approved by Council on June 1, 2020. No additional funds are required to implement the Customer Service Strategy. CONCLUSION Customer service is being elevated to the forefront of the Community Development Department operations. Staff recognizes that the customers are integral to the success of the department and that it is their vision that staff implement every day. Metrics, implementation measures, and timelines are the components necessary towards creating a comprehensive customer service program that each department can use for training new hires and integrating into day-to-day operations. NEXT STEPS 10.A Packet Pg. 445 The Customer Service Strategy is a developing document that will be revised as new information and feedback is obtained. The next priorities will be to create the formal administrative remedies process, including the post-incident analysis; update the Customer Service Survey and process flow charts; and to draft the Customer Service Training Manual with protocols for common situations and engagement strategies for staff. Tasks with a longer lead time include automating feedback loops through EnerGov system, incorporating components of the Customer Service Strategy into employee performance evaluations, and working with Human Resources for the on -boarding procedures. There are many opportunities for improving and maintaining a high level of customer service within the Community Development Department and each incremental step in implementing the Customer Service Strategy will be critical to the overall success of the Department. PUBLIC OUTREACH As the Strategy is implemented, there will be additional outreach to the public and other staff through the Developer’s Roundtable, surveys, and direct contact . 10.A Packet Pg. 446 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Selection of Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities 2021 Annual Conference Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: City Clerk Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips Prepared By: Anne Bybee Anne Bybee Strategic Plan Goals ☐ Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization ☐ Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION Appointment of a Council Member to serve as voting delegate for the City of Gilroy at the League of California Cities 2021 Conference. BACKGROUND The League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled for September 22 -24, 2021 in Sacramento. As a member agency of the League of California Cities, Gilroy has the opportunity to participate in the consideration of resolutions that establish League policy at the annual business meeting being held on Friday, September 24 th. In order to vote on League resolutions, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and may appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. At this time, Mayor 10.B Packet Pg. 447 Blankley and Mayor Pro Tempore Tovar are the only Council Members who have registered for and will be attending the conference. RECOMMENDATION Appoint a Council Member to serve as Gilroy’s voting delegate at the 2021 League of California Cities Conference. Attachments: 1. LOCC Delegate information Attachments: 1. League Delegate 10.B Packet Pg. 448 10.B.a Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: League Delegate (3407 : League Delegate) 10.B.a Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: League Delegate (3407 : League Delegate) 10.B.a Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: League Delegate (3407 : League Delegate) City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Authorize Funding for Improvements at the Gilroy Golf Course Meeting Date: August 16, 2021 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Finance Department Submitted By: Harjot Sangha Prepared By: Harjot Sangha Strategic Plan Goals  Fiscal Stability ☐ Downtown Revitalization  Economic Development ☐ Neighborhood Services ☐ Enhanced Public Safety ☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize funding for capital improvements at the Gilroy Golf Course in the amount of $113,900. 2. Adopt a resolution appropriating the $113,900 form Capital Projects Fund (400) for the related improvements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Authorize the allocation of $113,900 received from Lennar Homes per the Property Improvement Agreement related to the Hoey North development, on improvements at the City-owned Gilroy Golf Course (Golf Course). ANALYSIS The City entered into a Property Improvement Agreement (PIA) with Lennar Homes for the Hecker Pass North Residential Cluster (PIA 2021-01), also known as the Hoey 10.C Packet Pg. 452 North development. The development has direct impacts to the Golf Course and its operations. The PIA, amongst various other public improvements, requires the developer to pay for all the costs to either mitigate leaving Hole #9 at its current location (adjacent to Autumn Drive) or relocating Hole #9 within the Golf Course property. The final decision was to relocate Hole #9, and as a result, the developer realized net savings of approximately $113,900 since they were not required to install high netting along the east boundary of the course. Instead, the developer will now install a tubular fence of standard height which will cost significantly lower. The current agreement calls for any net savings to be credited to the Gilroy Golf Course and remitted to the City. The payment was received by the City in May 2021. This presents a unique opportunity for the City to program the one-time funds for some much-needed improvements at the Golf Course property. The Golf Course Operator has identified several one-time improvements on the property, such as replacement of cart roads, and the picnic/BBQ area revamp. City staff recommends allocating the savings generated by the Golf Course Operator’s decision to relocate Hole #9, to make other improvements on the property. ALTERNATIVES None, the PIA calls for the funds to be made available for the Golf Course. City Council could decide to not authorize the improvements at this time and Ci ty will continue to hold the funds to be programmed later. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The funds are currently held in Fund 400 – Capital Projects. The funds in the amount of $113,900 would be appropriated for capital improvements at the Gilroy Golf Cours e. Attachments: 1. Budget Amendment Resolution 10.C Packet Pg. 453 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 TO APPROPRIATE $113,900 FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (400) FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE GILROY GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a budget for the City of Gilroy for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 on June 7, 2021; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council, in the staff report dated August 16, 2021, a proposed amendment to said budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. The purpose of such amendment is to appropriate $113,900 received from Lennar Homes per the Property Improvement Agreement No. 2021-01, for capital improvements at the Gilroy Golf Course; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and considered the same and is satisfied with said budget amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Approval and Authorization. The City Council does further resolve, order and/or direct as follows: a. That the City’s previously adopted Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget, as the same has been amended to date, is hereby further amended; and b. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City’s Finance Director, who is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of this Resolution pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget of City. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at its meeting held on this 16th day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 10.C.a Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Budget Amendment Resolution (3416 : Gilroy Golf Course Improvements) APPROVED: Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 10.C.a Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Budget Amendment Resolution (3416 : Gilroy Golf Course Improvements)