Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/2020 Planning Commission - Regular Meeting Packet Special Planning Commission Agenda August 20, 2020 6:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair: Tom Fischer: tom.fischer@cityofgilroy.org Sam Kim: sam.kim@cityofgilroy.org Vice Chair: Casey Estorga: casey.estorga@cityofgilroy.org Fabian Morales-Medina: fabian.morales@cityofgilroy.org John Doyle: john.doyle@cityofgilroy.org Peter Fleming: peter.fleming@cityofgilroy.org Reid Lerner: reid.lerner@cityofgilroy.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THIS MEETING WILL BE LIMITED. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE BY EMAILING ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS TO PHIL ANGELO AT phil.angelo@cityofgilroy.org OR BY LEAVING A VOICE MESSAGE COMMENT BY CALLING (408) 846-0471, PRIOR TO 5:00 P.M. AUGUST 20, 2020. THE AUGUST 20, 2020 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 will be offering telephone and email options for public comments at this meeting. The public is encouraged to participate in this meeting by telephone or email as follows: You are strongly encouraged to watch the 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 Council Agendas and Videos button from the home page. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.COMMENTS MAY BE EMAILED TO THE CLERK PRIOR TO OR DURING THE MEETING AT phil.angelo@cityofgilroy.org AND MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE CHAIR OPENS PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE ITEM. ADDITIONALLY, COMMENTS MAY BE MADE BY LEAVING A VOICE MESSAGE AT (408) 846-0471, PRIOR TO 5:00 P.M. AUGUST 20, 2020. IMPORTANT: identify the Agenda Item Number or PUBLIC COMMENT in the subject line of your email. The Clerk will read the first three minutes of each email into the public 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 Com munity Development Department a minimum of 2 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0471. If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the le gislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission afte r distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956, at a Special Meeting, comments by the public will be taken only on those items on the agenda. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda. The law does not permit the Planning Commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Planning Commission action is requested, the Planning Commission may place the matter on a future agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RELATED PROJECT APPLICATIONS WILL BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY AND ACTION WILL BE TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY. COMPANION PROJECTS UNDER NEW BUSINESS WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR ACTION PRIOR TO, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RELATED PUBLIC HEARING. THIS REQUIRES DEVIATION IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AS NOTED WITHIN THE AGENDA. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. August 6, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. M 20-11 (Appeal) requests an appeal of the Minor Modification MM 20-19 approval to install landscaping, including new Red Maple (Acer Rubrum) trees, within an approximately 390 foot long section of parkstrip located on the south side of Eagle Ridge Drive, in an R1-PUD. The parkstrip is located along Eagle Ridge Drive, between County Down Way and Portmarnock Way, adjacent to the open space at 7151 Eagle Ridge Drive 1. Staff Report: Phil Angelo, Planning Technician 2. Open Public Hearing 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 5. Possible Action: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Adopt a resolution upholding the original approval of Eagle Ridge Drive Landscaping MM 20-19 (20060007), subject to certain findings and conditions. B. Z 20-01, Amendment to Gilroy City Code Chapter 30, Article XXXI, Off -Street Parking Requirements, to add Bicycle Parking Standards 1. Staff Report: Melissa Durkin, Planner II 2. Open Public Hearing 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 5. Possible Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance and send the matter back to staff to allow adequate time to conduct stakeholder outreach, allow legal review, and make appropriate language refinements and adjustments. VI. NEW BUSINESS- NONE VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. August 10, 2020 Planning Division Current Project Log VIII. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair Tom Fischer - General Plan Advisory Committee Vice Chair Casey Estorga - Street Naming and High Speed Rail Authority Commissioner John Doyle - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Commissioner Fabian Morales-Medina- Historic Heritage Committee Commissioner Peter Fleming - Gilroy Downtown Business Association and South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee Commissioner Sam Kim - General Plan Advisory Committee Commissioner Reid Lerner IX. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT X. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT XI. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of September 3, 2020 at 6:30 P.M. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of AUGUST 6, 2020 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM and Chair Fischer led the pledge of allegiance. II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL Planning Technician Phil Angelo reported on the posting of the Agenda, which was posted on Friday July 31, 2020 at 3:05 PM. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Reid Lerner Planning Commissioner Present Casey Estorga Vice Chair Present Fabian Morales-Medina Planning Commissioner Absent John Doyle Planning Commissioner Present Peter Fleming Planning Commissioner Present Sam Kim Planning Commissioner Present Tom Fischer Chair Present III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Fischer opened public comment; there being no comments for items not on the agenda, he moved on to the consent agenda. IV. CONSENT AGENDA RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Reid Lerner, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Sam Kim, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lerner, Estorga, Doyle, Fleming, Kim, Fischer ABSENT: Morales-Medina A. Minutes of the July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting V. PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Finding of Consistency for the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2021 through Fiscal Year 2025 to Determine its Consistency with the City’s General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) City Engineer / Transportation Engineer Gary Heap presented the report. Motion: adoption of a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy Finding the proposed 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the General Plan. 4.A Packet Pg. 4 Communication: August 6, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 1] MOVER: Sam Kim, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Reid Lerner, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lerner, Doyle, Fleming, Kim, Fischer NAYS: Estorga ABSENT: Morales-Medina B. Finding of Consistency for the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2021 through Fiscal Year 2025 to Determine its Consistency with the City’s General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public comment was opened; there being no comments, it was then closed. Motion: recommendation that the City Council review of the Capital Improvements Program and consider the feasibility of a Civic Center Master Plan. RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 1] MOVER: Casey Estorga, Vice Chair SECONDER: Sam Kim, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lerner, Estorga, Fleming, Kim, Fischer NAYS: Doyle ABSENT: Morales-Medina VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. 7/31/2020 Planning Division Current Project Log There was no presentation given. VIII. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION There were no presentations given. IX. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS X. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT Senior Planner Tambornini updated the Commission on the status of the Historic Resources Inventory and informed them of the items that would be agendized for the August 20, 2020 meeting. Chair Fischer asked for clarification regarding the status of the traffic signalization of 1st and Kelton. XI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Assistant City Attorney Jolie Houston had no report. XII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of August 20, 2020 at 6:30 P.M. Chair Fischer Adjourned the meeting to the special meeting of August 20, 2020 4.A Packet Pg. 5 Communication: August 6, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) Phil Angelo, Planning Technician 4.A Packet Pg. 6 Communication: August 6, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) Karen L. Garner DIRECTOR Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofgilroy.org DATE: August 20, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Angelo, Planning Technician SUBJECT: M 20-11 (Appeal) requests an appeal of the Minor Modification MM 20-19 approval to install landscaping, including new Red Maple (Acer Rubrum) trees, within an approximately 390 foot long section of parkstrip located on the south side of Eagle Ridge Drive, in an R1-PUD. The parkstrip is located along Eagle Ridge Drive, between County Down Way and Portmarnock Way, adjacent to the open space at 7151 Eagle Ridge Drive RECOMMENDATION: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Adopt a resolution upholding the original approval of Eagle Ridge Drive Landscaping MM 20-19 (20060007), subject to certain findings and conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant (Community of Eagle Ridge Owners’ Associate) would like to plant Acer Rubrum (Red Maple) trees and landscaping within an existing park strip along Eagle Ridge Drive. The appellant (Ray Ivicevich) is appealing this decision. The original application to plant the new landscaping (MM 20-19) was approved as a Minor Modification on June 24 2020. Both the Appellants appeal letter and the original application with conditions of approval have been attached to this staff report. Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt a resolution upholding the project approval, subject to certain findings and conditions. BACKGROUND: Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is presently a grass park strip located between two rows of trees. South of the property are several residential hillside estate lots, and beyond that is open space. Eagle Ridge drive 5.A Packet Pg. 7 2 continues east and west of the property with similar park strips planted with trees along them. North of the property is a residential tract within the Eagle Ri dge Subdivision. LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Hillside Residential; Ornamental Landscaping Hillside RH-PUD North Hillside Residential Hillside RH-PUD South Estate Lots, Open Space Hillside; Open Space RH-PUD/OS East Hillside Residential; Ornamental Landscaping Hillside RH-PUD West Hillside Residential; Ornamental Landscaping Hillside RH-PUD Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is exempt from environmental review under the following section of the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines: Section 15301 Existing Facilities exempts from further environmental review, those projects involving “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” The maintenance of landscaping areas is listed as an example of this CEQA exemption. The project consists of replacing sod in an existing park strip with trees and a variety of plant materials, with no expansion of the existing landscaping footprint. Section 15304(b) Minor Alterations of Land exempts from further environmental review those projects involving “New gardening or landscaping, including replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping.” Site History: The site is part of the Eagle Ridge Planned Unit Development. This development has the following related prior project approvals:  AS 96-17 (Resolution 96-57) – This is the Original Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site approval. This approval contains the original conditions of approval for the Eagle Ridge development.  TM 96-05 (Resolution 96-55) – Original tentative map application associated with the development. ANALYSIS: 5.A Packet Pg. 8 3 General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for Hillside uses, which supports the proposed project request. As such, the proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Key goals and policies that apply to this project are discussed as follows: POLICY TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS Policy 1.11 - Community Beautification. Actively promote the beautification of Gilroy by acquiring easements or development rights for open space, planting street trees, and landscaping public rights-of-way. Planting landscaping and street trees enhances the beauty of the existing area. Policy 1.12 - Street Trees Line the City’s streets with trees so that they become enjoyable and beautiful spaces rather than merely corridors of traffic, creating a rich “urban forest” for the enjoyment of future generations. Tree species should be selected that will (a) provide a canopy of shade; and (b) have root systems that will not cause sidewalk buckling and other damage Replacing the sod with trees so that they become enjoyable and beautiful spaces is consistent with the goals of this policy. In addition, the tree species and root barrier were selected so that they would not cause sidewalk buckling and other damage, which is a goal of this policy. Conformance with Zoning Code & Development Standards: The site within Eagle Ridge subdivision is zoned Single-Family Residential Hillside – Planned Unit Development. (RH-PUD). Gilroy City Code (GCC) section 30.50.41 (b)(1) states that that the Community Development Director or designee may approve changes to previously approved development permits, but only for minor modification of architectural elements, lighting, or landscaping details. This includes minor landscape furniture and structures, benches, small trellises, and planters which do not affect the use, intensity, general character, architectural style, circulation or other site function of the project. The original conditions of approval for the proposed development do not specifically address site landscaping requirements, and the project file does include a copy of the approved landscape plan. However, common landscape improvements and individual home designs within a PUD remain subject to City review. Based on City code, modification to planting within the common park-strip qualifies as a minor change to existing landscaping. Thus, staff evaluated the project for consistency with the following applicable standards:  GCC Section 30.38.20 Landscaping, Water Efficiency, and Storm Water Retention and Treatment. Water efficient landscape documentation is not required for modification of existing landscaping area of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of landscape area or less. However, the project plan was reviewed in consultation with a qualified landscape professional, to include 5.A Packet Pg. 9 4 suitable groundcover and tree plantings for the park strip, which would connect to existing irrigation systems. The plan removes sod, which is not recommended as a drought tolerant material, and provides additional shade trees.  GCC Section 30.38.40 General Landscape standards. This section provides that landscaping shall enhance the aesthetic quality of the develop ment; comply with an approved landscape design plan; incorporate a variety of plant materials; include minimum 15 gallon trees spaced appropriately, include root protection to prevent damage to sidewalks, etc. The proposed landscaping plan provides for an appropriate enhancement of an existing private roadway park strip. The new plant materials with street trees have been recommended by a landscape professional and approved by the Eagle Ridge Homeowners Association.  GCC Section 30.50.43 Scope of Review requirements provide criteria that landscaping shall be in harmony with adjacent development, not remove healthy trees, assure ongoing health and maintenance and be consistent with environmental requirements. The project would enhance the existing streetscape with suitable plant types. The Eagle Ridge Homeowners association selected Acer Rubrum trees, in-lieu of typical Sycamore species planted throughout the park strips due to sidewalk damage caused by Sycamore tree roots. Further the palette was selected in consultation with a landscaping professional and supported by City staff as appropriate.  The Deputy Fire Marshal maintains a list of plants that are prohibited within the Gilroy Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The proposed tree and plant species are not on the list of prohibited materials. Appeal Letter: The subject appeal was received by Ray Ivicevich on July 14, 2020 via email, in accordance with GCC section 30.50.47. The detailed appeal letter is attached to this staff report. Staff provides the following responses to the items listed in the appeal letter: 1. The Eagle Garden HOA is responsible for maintaining the landscaping and is authorized to file applications on behalf of the homeowners. 2. Replanting of this park strip section as a separate project is permitted given that it consists of an infill section that was not previously planted, except for sod. This small section may be permitted with a Minor Modification request and does not require an Architectural & Site Review. However, staff has established under condition 2 of the MM 20-19 approval that any future changes to common park strips shall be reviewed comprehensively, with an Architectural and Site Review permit. 3. Staff would encourage landscaping in a common park strip to maintain a uniform planting program. In this case, the applicant provided justification that the current species (European Sycamore – Platanus x hispanica) has caused significant damage to curbs and sidewalks, and the alternative tree with 18” root barrier would be better in this regard. City regulations do not establish a design 5.A Packet Pg. 10 5 requirement for tree species within a private park strip. In this case, deference has been given to the HOA which has authority and responsibility for maintenance of this private landscape improvement. City review has been completed to assure compliance with City requirements. 4. The approval does not grant approval for any other modifications in this Planned Unit Development. The association has been directed to obtain permits made on another street within the subdivision (Murfield Way). However, MM 20-19 does include included approval of the partial planting that had already completed within the subject park strip. 5. The Deputy Fire Marshall provided a list of plants that are not safe to plant within the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI). None of the proposed species are on this list . The proposed Maple tree is a recommended tree by Fire Safe Marin. 6. The appellant references a page in Resolution 96-57, with regard to tree species. Staff notes that neither tree species used for the majority of the park strips (Sycamore) nor the proposed tree species (Acer Rubrum) are indigenous to California. 7. Subsequent changes to improvements within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) are anticipated and allowed. Chapter 30.50 details the administrative staff level Architectural & Site and Minor Modification permit processes for such changes, which includes landscaping. Staff must make a determination based on established design criteria and policies. In this case, neither the municipal code nor the PUD approval specifies a tree species or planting program for the park strips. 8. An ISA certified arborist’s report is not required for this type of application. The applicant’s consultant has provided guidance on best practices and tree selection. Staff research has found that this is a common tree for urban forestry uses. The following link to the tree detail from the Urban Forestry Ecosystems Institute is provided for more information: https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree- detail/acer-rubrum 9. As noted in item 1 above, this approval is limited to an infill strip along Eagle Ridge drive. The HOA is aware that comprehensive Architectural and Site review will be required for any future changes. 10. Staff’s determination that a Minor Modification is appropriate for this permit is based on the fact that the project area is less than (2,500) square feet and GCC section 30.50.41 that allows a Minor Modification permit for changes to previously approved development permits, including landscaping. A project aerial and plans are attached to this staff report that show the change under consideration consists of a small section of park strip along Eagle Ridge Drive. Staff notes that four trees had been planted without the benefit of the permit approval prior to the application submittal. These trees were observed during the staff site visit on 5.A Packet Pg. 11 6 June 23, 2020. The intent was to include the existing planting as part of MM 20 -19 issued on June 24, 2020, but the project description was not updated to reflect this change. As a consequence, the original 390 feet of planting identified in the application actually should actually reflect (17) trees and approximately ~520 lineal feet of park strip planting. The attached resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the approval addresses this oversight with a modified condition. Based on this review staff recommends denial of the appeal and upholding the administrative approval MM 20-19, with slightly modified conditions. A Planning Commission resolution upholding the appeal and including recommended conditions is included as an attachment to this staff report. Noticing: Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy Planning Division using current ownership data. On August 10, 2020, notices of this Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners, and a notice was published in the Gilroy Dispatch on August 7, 2020. In addition, the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage. Appeal Procedure: In accordance with Section 30. 51.50 of the Gilroy City Code, the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed, in wr iting, to the City Council within 20 days of adoption of the resolution. Appeal forms may be obtained from the City Clerk and must be submitted with the appropriate fee before the end of the appeal period. Attachments: 1. Eagle Ridge Project Aerial 2. MM 20-19, Drawings 3. Landscape Consultant Justification 4. Resolution 1996-57 5. MM 20-19, Approval 6. Appeal Letter 7. Resolution of Approval M 20-11 8. HOA Response to Appeal Letter 5.A Packet Pg. 12 200 ft N➤➤N© 2020 Google © 2020 Google © 2020 Google PROJECT AREA 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Eagle Ridge Project Aerial (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Acer rubrum 'Autumn Blaze' 24" box Callistemon 'Little John' 5g Callistemon 'Little John' 5g Acer rubrum 'Autumn Blaze' 24" box 30' Sonoma Fieldstone Boulder Calandrinia Spectabilis Calandrinia Spectabilis Teucrium fruticans ‘Compactum’ 5g Achillea 'Moonshine' Achillea 'Moonshine' EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE 4' 5.A.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: MM 20-19, Drawings (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Acer rubrum 'Autumn Blaze' 24" box Callistemon 'Little John' 5g Callistemon 'Little John' 5g Acer rubrum 'Autumn Blaze' 24" box 30' Sonoma Fieldstone Boulder Calandrinia Spectabilis Calandrinia Spectabilis Dwarf Loropetalum chinensis 5g EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE 4' Calamagrostis 'Karl foerster 5gCalamagrostis 'Karl foerster 5g 5.A.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: MM 20-19, Drawings (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) ROOT BARRI- EP Series Root Barrier Panels Made from injection molded High Impact Polypropylene (HIPP) with a unique factory installed joiner strip that eases installation. EP Series Panels include a “T” top edge to prevent root overgrowth and an Anchor Lock™ external flange at the base to lock panels in the ground. Suitable for all planting installations. Available in 12”, 18”, 24”, and 36” depths. Specifications: EP Series Panels have a minimum thickness of 0.090 inches, and are made of 50% post consumer High Impact Polypropylene with built in U.V. inhibitors to ensure longevity. The EP Root Barrier Panels have 1/2” raised vertical ribs running perpendicular to the panel and 6” on center. All EP Series Panels feature a 3/8” wide “T” top edge and an external ground anchor base flange that is 1/8” wide. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION COLOR PACKAGE QTY. WT. EA (LBS) PRODUCT CLASS EP-1250 12” X 24” ROOT BARRIER PANEL BLACK 25 1.56 50LP EP-1850 18” X 24” ROOT BARRIER PANEL BLACK 25 1.80 50LP EP-2450 24” X 24” ROOT BARRIER PANEL BLACK 25 2.12 50LP EP-3650 36” X 24” ROOT BARRIER PANEL BLACK 25 3.20 50LP ANCHOR LOCK FLANGE 851 N. Harvard Avenue Lindsay, CA 93247 800-726-1994 BACK ASTM SPECIFICATIONS EP SERIES ROOT BARRIER PANELS PROPER- TIES TENSILE STRENGTH YIELD ELONGATION FLEXURAL MODULUS NOTCHED IZOD IMPACT ROCKWELL HARDNESS ASTM TEST (UNITS) D638 (PSI) D638 D790A (PSI) D256 (PSI) D785 VALUES 3,600-4,200 12% 150,00 3.0 @ 73°F R70 FRONT 12” 18” 24” 36” 24” RECOMMENDED INSTALLATION SURROUND APPLICATION PANELS PLACED AROUND ROOT BALL, AT SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO ALLOW PROPER BACKFILL OF MATERIALS. LINEAR / ROOT PRUNING APPLICATION PANELS PLACED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE HARDSCAPE BEING PROTECTED. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: MM 20-19, Drawings (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) TECHLINE® CV 17mm DRIPLINE APPLICATIONS • Subsurface or on-surface installations • Turf, shrubs, trees and flowers • Sports turf, tennis courts, golf courses • Slopes • Longer lateral runs • Curved, angular or narrow planting areas • High traffic/high liability areas • Areas subject to vandalism • High wind areas • At-grade windows • Green walls, green roofs • Raised planters SPECIFICATIONS • Broadest choice of emitter flow rates: 0.26, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.9 GPH • Emitter spacings: 12”, 18“ and 24” (24” spacing available for 0.6 and 0.9 GPH only) • Pressure compensation range: 14.5 to 58 psi • Bending radius: 7” • Maximum recommended system pressure: 58 psi • Minimum pressure required: 14.5 psi • Tubing diameter: 0.66“ OD; 0.56” ID; 0.050” wall • Coil lengths: 100’, 250’, 500‘, 1,000’ • Recommended minimum filtration: 120 mesh • Diaphragm made of silicon • ISO 9261 Standard Compliance 2 psi CHECK VALVE IN EACH EMITTER All emitters turn on and off at the same time, maximizing balance of application. Holds back up to 4.6’ of water (elevation change). No low emitter drainage, great on slopes. Delivers more precise watering. UNIQUE PATENTED EMITTER DESIGN WITH PHYSICAL ROOT BARRIER Offset flow path, extra large bath area and raised outlet prevent root intrusion without chemical reliance. PRESSURE COMPENSATING Precise and equal amounts of water are delivered over a broad pressure range. CONTINUOUS SELF-FLUSHING EMITTER DESIGN Flushes debris as it is detected, throughout operation, not just at the beginning or end of a cycle, ensuring uninterrupted emitter operation. EMITTER WITH ANTI-SIPHON FEATURE Prevents ingestion of debris into tubing caused by vacuum. SELF-CONTAINED, ONE-PIECE DRIPLINE CONSTRUCTION Assures reliable, easy installation. FLEXIBLE UV RESISTANT TUBING Adapts to any planting area shape - tubing curves at a 7” radius. For on-surface installations withstands heat and direct sun. MAKES INSTALLATION QUICKER Does not require air/vacuum relief vent or automatic flush valve for on-surface or subsurface installations. Use manual flush valves at exhaust headers. FEATURES & BENEFITS Maximum Uniformity in Subsurface and On-Surface Including Slopes QUALIFIES FOR USE ON LEED PROJECTS LIMITED WARRANTY FOR DRIPLINES Netafim warrants any polyethylene tubing and driplines (Techline® HCVXR, HCVXR-RW and RWP, CV, DL, RW, RWP and EZ) sold to be free from original defects in materials and workmanship for a period of seven (7) years and ten (10) years for environmental stress cracking - from the date of original delivery. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: MM 20-19, Drawings (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) FLOW PER 100 FEET 12” 18” 24” 0.26 EMITTER 0.4 EMITTER 0.9 EMITTEREMITTER SPACING GPH GPM GPH GPM GPH GPM GPH GPM 26.4 0.44 42.3 0.71 60.8 1.01 92.5 1.54 17.6 0.29 28.2 0.47 40.5 0.68 61.6 1.03 - - - - 30.4 0.51 46.2 0.77 0.6 EMITTER INLET PRESSUREMAXIMUM LENGTH OF A SINGLE LATERAL (FEET) 20 psi 25 psi 35 psi 45 psi 55 psi 60 psi EMITTER SPACING 12” 18“ 24” EMITTER FLOW (GPH) 0.26 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.26 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 331 242 190 144 468 344 270 204 342 260 413 302 238 180 584 429 338 257 430 326 518 380 299 227 737 540 426 323 542 412 594 436 343 260 845 620 489 371 622 472 655 480 378 287 932 684 539 410 686 522 681 500 393 298 969 713 561 426 716 544 GENERAL GUIDELINES EMITTER FLOW 0.26 GPH 0.4 GPH 0.6 GPH 0.9 GPH 0.26 GPH 0.4 GPH 0.6 GPH 0.9 GPH EMITTER SPACING 18” 12“ 12” 12“ 18” 18” 12“ 12“ LATERAL (ROW) SPACING APPLICATION RATE (INCHES/HOUR) TIME TO APPLY ¼” OF WATER (MINUTES) SHRUB & GROUNDCOVERTURF CLAY SOIL LOAM SOIL SANDY SOIL COARSE SOIL CLAY SOIL LOAM SOIL SANDY SOIL COARSE SOIL Following these maximum spacing guidelines, emitter flow selection can be increased if desired by the designer. 0.9 GPH flow rate available for areas requiring higher infiltration rates, such as coarse sandy soils. On-surface or bury evenly throughout the zone to a maximum of 6”Bury evenly throughout the zone from 4”to 6” BURIAL DEPTH Note: 0.4, 0.6 and 0.9 GPH are nominal flow rates. Actual flow rates used in the calculations are 0.42, 0.61 and 0.92 GPH. 18” 20” 22”12” 14” 18”12” 14” 18”12” 14” 16”18” 21” 24”18” 21” 24”16” 18” 20”16” 18” 20” 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.64 0.55 0.43 0.98 0.84 0.65 1.48 1.27 1.11 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.73 0.65 0.59 1.11 0.99 0.89 80 89 97 23 27 35 15 18 23 10 12 13 80 93 106 50 58 66 20 23 26 13 15 17 FLOW RATE EMITTER SPACING COIL LENGTH MODEL NUMBER ORDERING INFORMATION 100’ TLCV26-1201 250’ TLCV26-12025 1,000’ TLCV26-1210 100’ TLCV26-1801 250’ TLCV26-18025 1,000’ TLCV26-1810 100’ TLCV4-1201 250’ TLCV4-12025 1,000’ TLCV4-1210 100’ TLCV4-1801 250’ TLCV4-18025 1,000’ TLCV4-1810 100’ TLCV6-1201 250’ TLCV6-12025 500’ TLCV6-1205 1,000’ TLCV6-1210 100’ TLCV6-1801 250’ TLCV6-18025 500’ TLCV6-1805 1,000’ TLCV6-1810 100’ TLCV6-2401 250’ TLCV6-24025 1,000’ TLCV6-2410 100’ TLCV9-1201 250’ TLCV9-12025 500’ TLCV9-1205 1,000’ TLCV9-1210 100’ TLCV9-1801 250’ TLCV9-18025 500’ TLCV9-1805 1,000’ TLCV9-1810 100’ TLCV9-2401 250’ TLCV9-24025 1,000’ TLCV9-2410 100’ TLCV001 250’ TLCV0025 500’ TLCV005 1,000’ TLCV010 12” 18” 12” 18” 12” 18” 24” 12” 18” 24” BLANK TUBING 0.26 GPH 0.4 GPH 0.6 GPH 0.9 GPH SPECIFYING MODEL NUMBER BLANK TUBING MODEL NUMBERS: 100’ = TLCV001 250’ = TLCV0025 500‘ = TLCV005 1,000’ = TLCV010 Reference for Ordering Information Chart Techline CV Dripline = TLCV EMITTER FLOW RATE EMITTER SPACING COIL LENGTH C D 0.26 GPH 0.4 GPH 0.6 GPH 0.9 GPH = 26 = 4 = 6 = 9 12” 18” 24” = 12 = 18 = 24 100’ 250’ 500‘ 1,000’ = 01 = 025 = 05 = 10 D B C A SAMPLE MODEL NUMBER TLCV4-1210 B A FLOW RATE VS. PRESSURE 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 58 PRESSURE (psi) Techline CV emitters open at 14.5 psi and close at 2 psi.FLOW RATE (GPH)0.6 GPH 0.4 GPH 0.26 GPH 0.9 GPH TLCV 1/18 NETAFIM USA CS 888 638 2346 www.netafimusa.com 5.A.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: MM 20-19, Drawings (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Mahogany Wonder Mulch Description & Process: Feed Stock: Organic green materials, yard trimmings, brush, leaves. Particle Size: Material is ground to 2”, screened for 3/8” overs. Color: Product is colored using Amerimulch water based brown colorant. Colorant is made of fine particles (between .1 and 1.0) micron with extremely high density. Low VOC. Colorant is safe for humans and animals. Texture: Shredded organic material, fibrous, arbor mulch like appearance. Additional information: Mahogany Wonder Mulch is made up of green materials and yard trimmings ground to 2” which are then screened to remove material smaller than 3/8”. The product is then colored using a water based environmentally friendly dye. Mahogany Wonder Mulch has all the advantages of our original Wonder Mulch, but with a dark, rich mahogany color. Use Mahogany Wonder Mulch to add a warm, deep brown earth tone to landscapes. Mahogany Wonder Mulch helps landscapes conserve water, suppress weeds, and protects against soil compaction and overheating. For areas with steep inclines or heavy blower use the interlocking material of Mahogany Wonder Mulch allows the product to stay in place. (510) 429-1300 41900 Boscell Road Fremont, CA 94538 www.visionrecycling.com 5.A.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: MM 20-19, Drawings (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) From: Ryan Dinsmore [mailto:rdinsmore@alpinelandscapesca.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 8:34 AM To: Phil Angelo; Kraig Tambornini Cc: 'Tom Gibbons'; Chris Valenzuela Subject: RE: Eagle Ridge - Landscape Project Hello Phil, Thank you for the detailed email. Let me answer your questions the best I can in order: 1) The original tree on both sides of the proposed project are Sycamore trees. These trees have done a lot of damage, via root intrusion, to both sidewalks and homeowner property (which the HOA has been liable for) over the past 10 years as trees have aged. The HOA no longer wants to plant these trees in park strips / mow strips. They are still considered as an option if planted on a hillside, etc. Anthracnose has also been an issue with some of the existing Sycamore trees. 2) The Red Maple is an alternative the HOA would like to use. They have used is as a replacement tree when a Sycamore has been removed in prior years. As licensed landscape contractors, we support the decision of the HOA to use this tree. It is not root invasive and we will be selecting a hybrid “Autumn Blaze” Red Maple that is an improved variety of the species with limited disease / pest issues. 3) In our MM permit application, we included submittals showing the type of root barrier that will be used for the new trees. These will be set on both the curb and sidewalk side of the tree. 4) The HOA is striving for uniformity. This project is one of the first they are doing. They will monitor this project of 2 – 3 years to make sure this is a tree they want to use in future projects. Please let us know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Ryan Dinsmore President o: 408.846.9511 x101 c: 408.476.7042 f: 408.846.9501 alpinelandscapesca.com 5.A.c Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Landscape Consultant Justification (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • RESOLUTION NO. 96-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING A/S 96-17 (PUD), AN APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) IN ORDER TO CREATE VARYING BUILDING LOT SIZES, A GOLF COURSE AND CLUB HOUSE COMPLEX, PRIVATE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, AND TO MAKE UVAS CREEK PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY 1,845 ACRES, APNS 810-21-003, 810-22-001, 002 AND 003, AND 810-24-005 AND 006, SHAPELL INDUSTRIES , APPLICANT WHEREAS, Shapell Industries of Northern California submitted A/S 96 -17 (PUD) for architectural and site approval of a planned unit development for the Eagle Ridge project involving 831 building lots at build out, a golf course and club house complex, private streets and sidewalks, pedestrian improvements along Uvas Creek , and including the dedication to the City of 1,070 acres of hillside open space on approximately 1,845 acres, APNS 810-21-003, 810 -22 -001, 002 and 003 , and 810-24 -0 05 and 006 , variously zoned Rl-PUD {Single Family PUD), RH (Residential Hillside), and OS (Open Space); and WHEREAS, the property affected by A/S 96-17 is located along the west side of Santa Teresa Boulevard, south of Hecker Pass Highway and Uvas Creek , and along the southwest side of Miller Avenue as shown on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and i ncorporated herein by this reference ; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which included this project was considered with General Plan Amendment GPA 90-04, which EIR ( "Final Subsequent EIR for the O'Connell Ranch") was certified by the City Council to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to reflect the independent review and judgment of the City at their meeting on October 5 , 1992. In approving the project, the City Council made 5.A.d Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, all as set forth in Exhibits A and B to Resolution .92-79 adopted by the City Council on October 26, 1992 attached hereto as Exhibit Band incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned EIR has been reviewed and the City finds that the project remains substantially consistent with the previous CEQA documentation as described in the Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit Bl and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed A/S 96-17 (PUD) at its duly noticed meeting on August 29, 1996, and recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to the 14 conditions attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference and set forth in the Staff Report dated August 23 , 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed appl i cation A/S 96-17 (PUD), a plan se t dated August 9, 1996 and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written testimony at its duly noticed meeting on September 3, 1996; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitutes the record of the proceedings upon which this resolution is based is in the office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT SECTION I The City Council hereby finds that A/S 96-17 (PUD) complies with the findings required to grant PUD architectural and site approval pursuant to subsections (a} through {i) of Section 50.55 of the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance , and finds the facts as set forth more fully in the record incorporated herein, particularly in the 5.A.d Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • SECTION II The City Council hereby finds that: • 1 . This project is consistent with the Gilroy General Plan. 2. There are no offsite or onsite environmenta l effects of this project which are not addressed in the EIR, the Mitigat ion . Monitoring Plan or the Statement of Overriding Considerations that have been previously adopted for this project. 3. There is no new information or substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment that is not addressed in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitor ing Plan or the Statement of Overriding Considerations that have been previously adopted for this project. SECTION III A/S 96-17 (PUD) should be and hereby is approved, subject to the 14 conditions set forth in Exhibit C and consistent with the conditions imposed on TM 96-05, and subject to the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program set forth in Exhibits A and B to Resolution 92-79 attached hereto as Exhibit B, and subject to the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program set forth in the Addendum to the EIR attached hereto as Exhibit Bl. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3 ro day of September, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS : GILROY, MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON, SPRINGER, VALDEZ, GAGE NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE APPROVED: DoUt~ ATTEST: 5.A.d Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) HECKER SITE SllAPELl}s EAGLE RIDGE TM 96-05 & A/S 96-17 (PlJO) . . '. . .. . .. 7/19/96 TO SAN JOSE ;. ~ ::>i PASS I HIGHWAY \~ -'- ~ ~/w ~ VICINITY MAP '8 ~ ::r.. --~ ~ ~ PA~Ass HIGHWAY NO SCALE TO SAUNAS • •· 5.A.d Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) (Exhibit B cons-•s of Exhibits A & B to Re,LJticn 92-79) EXHIBIT A AN ADDENDUM TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP C.ILROY · ADOPTING FINDINGS, MJ:TIGATION MEASURES, AND STATEMENTS OF OVERJUDDfG CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO -THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE O'CONNELL RANCH (GPA 90-04) The City Council finds that one or more aignUicant effects would likely result from approval of this proj~ct and that the eubstantial evide~c• and mitigation measures relied upon by this Council supporting the r~ired findings are set forth as follows, and the City Council hereby adopts all mitigation measures in the Final EIR except as revised herein, including, but not limited to: I. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A. LAND USE;, 1. Significant Effect: (L0-1) The project will reduce the open apace character on approximately 500 acres of the site where homes and atr-ta would be constructed. Approximately 135 acres will be converted t~ golf course open space. Over 480 acres of the site will be graded during conatruction of the project. Open space views from Highway 152 and Santa Teresa Boulevard will be affected by the project. Mitigation or Avoidance: (LU-1) Nine hundred and sixty four acres of open space would be dedicated for preservation in permanent open space within the Hillside Reserve area of .the site. Large custom estate lots would be located on the lower hillsides with townhomes, 7,000 square foot, and quarter acre lots located on the lower, flatter area of the site. Three hundred and fifty acres of the site will be used for hillside open space and creekways. One hundred and thirty five acres will be developed as golf course open space. Mitigation or Avoidance: (LU-2) The City of Gilroy will require that a Homeowners Association or some other district be established that is responsible for maintaining the private open space. In addition, the City will require that ·a maintenance district, land trust, endowment, or some other type -of district be established to ensure maintenance of the hillside open space areas on the project site, as a condition of project approval. Mitigation or Avoidance: (LU-3) The project will be required to provide a minimum of two access points to the future Uvas Creek Preserve along the Filice property. The future visitors to the preserve, however, will be excluded from the adjacent golf course. Mitigation or Avoidance: (LU-4) The City will require a transfer of development rights from the creekways and salamander mitigation areas to ensure that those portions of the site remain undeveloped. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EXHIBIT B 5.A.d Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) ..... ♦ • , .. Appez:idix A -O'Connell Ranch E.IR 2 10/28/92 environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding Considerationa. below.) 2. Significant Effect: (Ltt-2) The project will eliminate 130 acree of · •Prime Farmland• and •Farmland of State Importance" as well as reduce the gra:i.ng potential on other parts of the •ite proposed fer developme.nt. Adjacent agricultural land may be _prematurely or unnece ■•arily converted to non-agric_ultural uses, due to perceived mcnata.ry benefits associated with the project • • Mitigation er Avoidance: Nona. The impact is unavoidable • . Finding: Specific economic, social or other con•iderationa make infeasible any mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations. below.) e. GEOLOGY: 3. Significant Effect: (G-1) The project proposes grading on between 480 and 500 acres of the site which will involve a volume of 4.5 million cubic yards of cut and an equal volume of fill. A maximum cut of over 50 feet is proposed at one location and fill depths would exceed 10 f-t over a ■ignificant portion of the developnent area. . Mitigation or Avoidance: (G-1) Grading will be controlled by li.ml.ting construction to lower flatter area• of the site and locating the larger custom estate lots on the hillside above the lower flatter areas. Grading for roadway construction will be reduced by constructing five bridges across canyons or drainages on the site. Grading of slopes above 30 percent will be limited and cuts of more than 10 to 12 feet will generally be limited. The City's Engineering Department will review all cuts with the -intent to limit them where feasible. Under special circumstances and in very limited areas, the City's Engineering Department may .allow cuts to exceed the maximum lO to 12 toot depth. Maxi.mu.nl cuts will be limited by the City's engineering criteria. The intent o~ the Gilroy engineering criteria is to generally limit grading to the minimum necessary for drainage. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding -Consideraeions, below.) 4. Significant Effect: (G-2) The proposed project is subject to potential seismic and slope stability haza.rds. Both active and inactive landslides were mapped on the site. An apparent inactive fault on the site has a remote potential for limited sympathetic movement during a major earthquake on a nearby active fault. Mi;igation or Avoidance: (G-2) Seismic hazards to homes will be mitigated by constructing homes to meet seismic Risk Level 4, in accordance with current practices in California. Possible hazard to structures from sympathetic movement on the apparent inactive fault will be avoided by setting buildings back from the fault, or using a foundation that would withstand the minor movement. Hazards from active and inactive landslides will be avoided either by avoiding development and construction activities in the slide area or by engineered excavation and recompaction of landslides. Hazards from 5.A.d Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -O'COnnell Ranch EIR 3 10/28/92 slope stability and landslides ·will be reduced by engineering all cut and fill slope ■ uaing standard engineering practice■ for construction of cut .and fill ■lopes including: not over ateepening ■lope• and using buttreas fill in the vicinity of highly frac¼ured and ■bear materials. Hazards from ups~ope_debris flows and colluvial deposits identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix A of this EIR), will be reduced or eliminated by conducting specific studies and following the recommendations of these studies. Slope stability will be mitigated by Gilroy•• requirement:to generally limit maximum cut• to 10 to 12 feet. finding: Change• or alterations have been raquired in, or incorporated into, such pr?jecta which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed enviroomental impact report. S. Significant Effect:. (G-3) During and after grading, the project will be subject to ero ■ion that could result in downstream sedimentation. Mitigation or Avoidance: (G-3) Erosion and sedimentation will be reduced by generally limiting the total area of grading and soil disturbances on the ■ite to the lower flatter areas of the aite. Ero•ion will be avoided along most of th• drainages on tha site by de ■ignating approximately 40 acre ■ cf the site for •creekways•, with very limited disturbance fo~ roadway construction or construction of biological mitigation measures such as ponds. Erosion will be controlled by limiting grading to the dry season and establishing erosion control meaaurea before the rainy •ea.son. An erosion control plan will be prepared that includes the u ■• of straw bale fences, check dams, dikes and settling baains to reduce runoff water velocities and force. Ground cover will be placed on graded surfaces where final grading is complete and pavement or structures will not be subsequently constructed. For example, erosion controlling ground cover will be placed on road cuts and fills above and below roadways. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 6. Significant Effect: (G-4) Expansive soils are present at some locations on the site which have a potential to adversely affect pavement and structures. Mitigation or Avoidance: (G-4) Potentially adverse effects from expansive soils will be avoided by placin.g expansive soils in deep fill and covering with low or non expansive soils. The expansive soils will be engineered in accordance with specif i ed moisture content and compaction requirements. Where expansive soils are present and building or other structures are proposed, a foundation design will be employed that com~ensates for the expansive characteristics which could result in structural damage. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • Appendix A o•connell Ranch Eill 4 10/28/92 c. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: 7. Significant Effect: (VW-1) The project will aignificantly rtlduce tha vegetation and wildli.fe habitat on the ■ita by·conver:ting gras ■land and woodland habitat to urban and suburban uses. Mitigation or Avoidance: (VW-1) :Vegetation and wildlife impact• will be partul.ly mitigated by limiting development to leas than 510,acre ■ of the site. Nine hundr:ed and ■ixty four acres will be left andiaturbed and dedicated to a public agency for open ,apace ;purpoaes, tharet:,y pre ■erv-ing the wildlife habitat value on thi• area of the ■ita. Three hundred and •iqbt acres of the site will be preserved as hill ■ide open apace, with con.at.ruction of improvements in this ar~a limited to water tank.9 and 1&ccea ■:roada : for ■ervice and maintenance of water facilities. Forty two acres of the! sit• generally located ·along the drainages will be preserved in open ■pace and designated as creekways. Vegetation and wildlife impacts will also be partially mitigated by the use of native plants for landscaping ma.teruls whenever po ■■ible, ■ince they afford the greatest wildlife habitat. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations male• infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternativH identified in the environmental impact report. (See statement of 09erridinq Considerati0n1, below.) 8. Significant Effect: (VW-2) Approximately 500 to 700 healthy medium and large sized oak, Bay Laurel, and Sycamore trees will be remc,,ed during grading and construction of the project. Mitigation or Avoidance: (VW-2) The landscaping plans will include a replacement ratio of a minimum of three trees for every tree removed with a trunk diameter of greater than six inches (measured 4.5 feet above the ground). Two thirds of the replacement trees will be native. The replacement trees will be a minimum ot one gallon in size. All treea that would be preserved on th• aite would be identified, mapped, clearly marked, and fenced to the drtp line, prior to any construction activity. No construction traffic would be allowed inside the drip line of trees to be preserved. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding considerations, below.) 9. Significant Effect: (VW-3) Native serpentine vegetation and wildli.fe . will be ~acted .by .. grading of .a grassy knoll located in the southeastern area of the site. ·Mitigation or Avoidance: (VW-3) or extremely limited on a minimum of 20\ of to approximately 12 acres. Grading will be avoided entirely the serpentine knoll, equivalent Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 10. Signif i cant Effect: (VW-4) construction and suburban uses could impact the intermittent drainages and their seasonal riparian habitat. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -O'Connell Ranch EIR 5 10/28/92 Mitigation or iAvoidanee: (VW-4) A :mini.mum of 40 acres of open space will be de•ignated for •creekway!" u ■e ■, :and maintained along ■even drainage• on the site. !Construction activitie ■ will be limited in the seasonal drainages, andtfive bridges wi ll l:le constructed for roadway c~oaaings · of these drainages. Highly visible fabric feacing or continuous flagging will be placed around the seasonal riparian:habitat to be preserved during :grading and construction to pre,aent impacts. ·Finding: Changes or alteration& have been required i..n, or incorporated into, euch!Projecta which:mitigate or avoid th~ eignificant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 11. ·significant Effect: (VW-5) . Removal of habitat in the project area could affect three specbes of special concarn ·that have been identified on the project aite. (A field :investigation found no checkarspot butterflies on the ■ite.) The three specie ■ are the weste.rn pond turtle, rad-legged frog, and the California tiger salamander. Each of these species is dependent upon the ponds on the site. Mitigation or Avoidance: (VW-5) Two of the three ponds on site will be preaerved, one located in the southeast corner of the site near Parman canyon and Miller Avenue and one located in Reservoir canyon.. A total of slightly over 100 acres surrounding the ponds will be left in open apace to assist in providing terrestrial habitat and a buffer between urban uses and the ponds. In addition, two new ponds will be constructed and other mitigation measures unplemented to provide for self-sustaining population of the three species, as described below. RESERVOIR CANYON POND: ~) Additional open land around this pond has been preserved to avoid impacts to the western pond turtle and red-legged frog. The proposed open space area should provide an adequate buffer area and provide adequate habitat for continued breeding success of these species. 2) In addition, a new tiger salamander breeding pond will be constructed downstream in the immediate vicinity to enhance habitat conditions in this portion of the site. A total of slightly over 100 acres of potential California tiger salamander hab i tat is included in the proj ect. 3) The perimeter of the mitigation area will be fenced to prevent access by off-road vehic l es. FJUUiAN CANYON POND: has been .preserved to avoid impacts The proposed open space area should prov i de adequate habitat for continued l) Additional open land around this pond to the California t i ger salamander . provide an adequate buffer area and breeding success o f this species. 2) An undisturbed corridor between the pond and suitable habitat to the southwest will be provided by retaining Farman Canyon creek i n its natural condition. Residential structures wi ll .be set back from the creek a minimum of 200 feet . 3) A new tiger salamander breed i ng pond wi ll be constr~cted in the southwest corner of the project site either wi thin or adjacent to the first tr i butary to Farma n Canyon Creek. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appe~dix A -0 1 COnnell Ranch EXR 6 10/28/92 4) Tunnels beneath the entry read will be provided, as well aa suitahl• barri.ers which are intended to prevent tiger •alamander from croa ■ing the road :and intended to direct migrating salamanders to the tunnel• ao tb&t they:cros• beneath the J:10&d. s :) The perimeter : of the mit!igation area will be fenced to prevent acceea by off-~oad vehicles. A draft California tigei:i aalamander Mitigation Plan has been prepared,:and ~ included in Appendix L. rrbe mitigation concept of this management plan ia to retain Parman canyon Pond, Reservoir canyon Pond, and area ■ ■urrounding theae two 1:>odiee of water in open ■pace for salamander habitat. Th• de,,eloped areas and roads that are located in the vicinity of these ponds will be surrounded by low ;walle or barriers to exclude salamanders. The .entry road that cro•••• the habitat, in the vicinity of Fa.rm.an canyon Pond will includes tunnels to allow salamander movement from one area to another. cut or fill slopes located in open apace area• will be planted with native graas to eata.blish upland habitat for this apecies. The Mitigation Plan provide ■ for the creation and maintenance of salamander breeding habitat in Farman canyon Pond, Reservoir canyon Pond; and two new pond ■<•-Figures 15 and 16). All existing and proposed breeding pend ■ would be located adjacent to er are within euitabl• upland <:a.lifarnia. tiger salamander habitat. Specific: measures tor the creation of each of these breeding pond ■ are described on page ■ 10,through 19 of the Mitigation Plan in Appendix L. Proper introduction techniques will be utilized to eatabli ■h salamander within th• breeding ponds (see page 23 of the Mitigation Plan). The Mitigation Plan also provide• for the protection of the tiger salamander in the development areas and project roads. Off-road vehicle structures, fencing, salamander barriers, salamande~ tunnels, and special curb and st:orm drain designs would protect salamander habitat from human disturbance, as described on pages 20 through 22 of the Mitigation Plan ( Appendix L) • The tiger salamander mitigation areas and other special status species mitigation areas will be established and maintained by an assessment district, homeowners association, land trust, endowment, or other similar .entity that is developed as a condition of approval cf the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated.into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as ident i fied in the completed environmental impact report. D. VISUAL AND AESTHETICS: 12. Significant Effect: {VA-lJ The proposed project will result in visual impacts from many vantage points in western, southern and central Gilroy including Santa Teresa Boulevard and Highway 152. From these vantage points, portions of the proposed development would be visible on the lower elevations of the site. Highway 152 and Santa Teresa Boulevard are designated as scenic corridors and, therefore, the project would have a significant visual impact by affecting views from these roadways. Mitigation or Avoidance: {VA-l) The project will reduce visual impacts by preserving the upper hillside of the project in permanent open space and generally limiting development to the lower flatter areas of the 5.A.d Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -o•ecnnell Ranch EIR 7 . 10/28/92 site. Visual impacts from grading will be limited by constructing a 16 fcot wide roadway (pavement surface) tc serve the custom estate lots located aero•• the toe of the hillside. The project includes a golf course within the clustered residential use• tc afford open apace. Santa Clara County•s ~equirement of a 100-foot wide development setback along Santa Teresa Boulevard will reduce visual impacts from this roadway. In conformance with this County requirement, the project will restrict any structures within a 109 foot wide strip adjacent to Santa Teresa. Boulevard •. Finding: specific economic, social or other con ■ideratione make infeasible tha mitigation meaaures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statwent of Over;riding conpiderations, below.) 13. Significant Effect: (VA-2) The project would have a potential future visual impact on the views froaa Uva• creek, when the park planned for this area is developed. Mitigation or Ayoidance: (VA-2) Potential visual impact• from Uvas Creek will ba reduced by the planting of landscaping that screens developnent from the future park site, and by the presence of a trail aystem on the aouth side of Dvas Creek, which is part of the Uvas Park Preserve trail system. Finding: Specific economic, social or ether consi~eratioa. make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding considerations, below.) 14. the tanks above the prominent. roadways, Significant Effect: (VA-3) Wa~ar tanks and access roads to serve may have visual impacts since they will be located on the hillside all residential development in areas that could be visually These features could have significant visual impacts on nearby Mitigation or Avoidance: (VA-3) The visual impacts of the proposed access roads and water tanks will be reduced by sele~ing locations that are as visually obscure as possible from most vantage points. Finding: Specific economic, social or ether considerations make _ infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of overriding Considerations. below.) E. DRAINAGE AND FLOODING: 15. Significant Effect: (OF-l) T~e proposed project will increase the amount of impervious area on the project site and, therefore, increase runoff from the site. The project will result in increased storm flows during a 100- year storm and even greater percentage increases during smaller storms, such as a 10-year event. Mitigation or Avoidance: {DF-1) The project will mitigate potential downstream flooding hazards through the preparation and development of a master storm drainage system that includes all of the site's watershed canyons that drain into Uvas Creek. The proposed storm drainage system will include on-site storm water detention ponds and/or downstream channel improvements as necessary to prevent increased downstream flooding hazard.· 5.A.d Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -o•connell Ranch EIR 8 10/28/92 Finding: Changes or altar~tion ■ have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof a■ identified in the completed environmental impact report. 16. Significant Effect: (DF-2) The project may have significant flood hazards impacts on the local drainages between th• project site and Ovas Creek. Some downstream drainage channels and pipes between the ■ite and Uva ■ creek have inadequate capacity to accommodate a 10 year flood and would be unable to carry additional runoff that would result from project developnent. Mitigation or Avoidance: (DP-2) Tba project will mitigate potential flood hazards to local drainages through a cccnbination of on-site etorm water detention ponds (water features on the golf course) and downstream channel improvements. An on~site storm water detention system wiil prevent increased runoff from the project by holding ■torm water on the site and allowing it to be released slowly, so that there is no increase over the exiating storm flows from the site. Improvements to storm draina, ditchea, and culverts will provide aufficiant drainage capacity for the poet-project 10-year storm flow from the project site to Uvas creek. Any off-aite •term drainage mitigation mea ■ur•• shall include acquiaitiona of easement ■ and/or righta-of-way by the developer. Any needed acquisition not under control of the developer at the time the tentative map is •ubmitted shall be ao noted in the submittal. A master atorm drainage ·plan would be required in order to establish me&JNres to reduce th• potential downatream impacts of ■torm water flows from O'Connell Ranch to Glen Loma and other adjoining properties. Thia master plan will be consistent with the City's master storm drainage plan. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporate!i into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 17. Significant Effect: (DF-3) Construction of the project could disturb underlying eoils on the site, contributing to sediment erosion and increasing sediment loading in Uvas Creek. In addition, surface runoff from the proposed residences and golf course would contain minor concentrations ot oil and grease, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and heavy metals. Fertilizer and any pesticides applied to the golf course turf could accumulate on the turf, depending upon net application rates, and assuming that surface runoff does not leave the golf course. Mitigat ion or ~voidance: (DF-3) The project would be required to conform to the regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Program. on-site detention ponds would provide locations for pollutant removal through settling, prior to discharge of the storm water runoff into the storm drainage system. In addition, scheduling earthwork activities during the dry season would prevent runoff erosion. During construction near the creek corridors, the developer would ensure that debris and soil is not deposited into the Uvas creek corridor. All existing debris would be removed from the corridors during constr~ction. Any earthwork activity occurring during the rainy season would be separated from street gutters and storm drains by ditches, berms or filtration barriers, such as hay bales. All exposed soils would be watered during the dry season to limit wind 5.A.d Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -o·connell Ranch BIR 9 10/28/92 erosion. In addition, streets surrounding the construction area would be swept regularly to collect sediment deposited on the streets before it is washed into the ston1 drain• or channels. A golf course operation plan would be developed prior to the issuance of a Planned Development Permit for the davelopaant of the golf course. The plan would include the following elements: l) Strict adherence to manufacturers recommendations and procedures involving chemical applications; 2) Use of chemicals approved by the county or Department of Agriculture; 3) Ose of only short-lived pesticides; 4) Application of chemicals only by State-licensed. personnel; 5) Limited use of chemicals; 6) Proper storage, handl.ing and di•RD••l of chemicals. Finding: Chang•• or alterations have been required in,· or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as -identified in the completed environmental impact report. 18. Significant Effect: (OF-4) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated with the O'Connell Ranch project would generate a significant increase in the routine maintenance over and above that required fer a similar project in the flat land areas of the city. Mitigation or Avoidance: (DF-4) In accordance with the City's requirements, the proposed project would ba required to establish a maintenance district, to provide for services in the hillside areas, where maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the flatland subdivisions. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projec=ts which mit~gate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. F. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 19. Significant Effect: (C.R-1) Two of the three prehistoric archaeological sites on the property may potentially be impacted by grading and construction activities proposed by the project. Mitigation or Avoidance: (CR-1) Impacts to the prehistoric archaeological resources will be mitigated by modifying the project to avoid these resources. Disturbance of the subsurface cultural materials will be limited or avoided by placing fill over the cultural resource sit~s, or avoid disturbance by placing open spaces uses where cultural resources sites are located. Ea.rthrnoving activities in the area of archaeological sites will be conducted in the presence of a qualified archaeologist and in consultation with a recognized Native American Observer. If disturbance of cultural materials results from striping organic material from the surface or scarification of the surface soil, a limited sample of the deposits will be excavated and recordation made by the archaeologist to provide a record of the resource. After sampl i ng, clean fill will be placed on top of these resources to protect them from future disturbance. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant env ironmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact: repor<;:. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • A~dix A -O'Connell Ranch EIR 10 10/28/92 20. Significant Jffect: (CR-2) The project may potentially impact ~chaeologieal resoure•• off of the •it• during construction cit underground utilities, sanitary aewer linea, and storm lines. Mitigation or Avoidance: (CR-2) Potantial :impactalto off •ite cultural resources could be reduced by the following me&auress 1) aurfaee reconnaissance and archival research along proposed alignment•, 2) in _ locations where cultural resource• are identified, monitoring1will be required by a qualified a.rebaeologiat during excavation and eartbmovu,9 activitiea, and 3) if cultural reaourcea are identified, construction will bethalted wbi.le a sample of the materials is recovered for recordation in accordance with current standards for archaeological resources. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental affects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. G. TRANSPORTATION: 21. Significant Effect: (T-1) Upon complete development and occupancy, the project will result in aignificant traffic impacts at the following five intersection ■: l) Intersection 41S -U.S. 101 NB Off-rasap/Lea~••ley Road, 2) Intersection 422 -Monterey Street at Leavealey Road, 3) Intersection 467 - Santa Teresa Boulevard at First Street, 4) Intersection 477 -Weatwcoci"Drive at First Street, and 5) Intersection 497 -Santa Teresa Boulevard and the North Project Entry. Mitigation or avoidance: (T-1) Roadway improvements are recommended to reduce the project impacts to a non-significant level, as described on pages 113-120 of the EIR. As a condition of project approval, the City of Gilroy will require the project to contribute its share of the costs of the improvements through the payment of traffic impact fees. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report • 22. Significant Effect: (T-2) Traffic circulation on Santa Teresa Boulevard could be impacted by project traffic at the two entrance streets to the project site. Mitigation or Avoidance: (T-2) Impacts to circulation on Santa Teresa Boulevard will be mitigated by · 1oc~t-ing the intersections at the enerance streets to meet the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency minimum spacing distance of one quarter mile, and by signalizing the intersections. The signal and intersection improvements at this intersection would be required to be completed to the ultimate intersection configuration, if the cost of the improvements is to be credited towards the payment of project traffic impact fees. The roadway improvements would include .long transition turn pockets on Santa Teresa. All right-of-way dedications shall be made as necessary for these signals, including adequate right-of-way for acceleration and deceleration lanes along Santa Teresa. The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has indicated that all interim construction costs, as well as all costs for demolition and complete ·removal of all interim measures (when the 5.A.d Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) ------· --·--· .. ·-------------• • Appendix A -O'COMell Ranch EIR 11 10/28/92 aignala are constructed to the ultimate design), shall be borne by the developer. Since the project will add traffic to Killer Aven~e,1 the City will require that the project include the widening of Miller Road to• half street cro ■s section plus 12 additional feet of pavement on the othed half of the ■treet, and any necessary right-of-way· acquisitions between the 190uthern property line and Santa Teresa Boulevard. Finding: Changes or alterations bave been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which :mitiga11e or avoi" the ai.gnificant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completad environmental impact report. 23. Significant Effect: {T-3) Traffic :generatad ~Y the project will use a fraction of reserve capacity. Existing :traffic together with project traffic, approved project traffic and reaaonal:>ly foreseeable traffic will a have a cumulative effect upon traffic circulation and congestion. Thirteen inter .. ctione would be impacted by eumulative traffic. These inter ■ertions are: 1) U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp/Leavesley Blvd., 2) U.S. 101 SB Off- Ramp/Laavesley Blvd., 3) Monterey St/Leavealey Blvd., 4} Santa Teresa Blvd./Pirst strNt, 5) Westwood Dr./ Fi.rat Street, 6) Santa Teresa Blvd./North Project Entry, 7) Monterey Street/First Street, 8) U.S. 101 N~ Off- Ramp/Pacheco Pass, 9) U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Tenth Street, 10) Thomas Road/Thomae Road Extension, 11) Santa Teresa/Thoma ■ Road extension, 12) Santa Teresa/Tenth street extension, and 13) Santa Teresa/Thomas Road. Mitigation or Avoidance: {T-3) The project would contril>ute a traffic impact fee to fund for a roadway improvements proportional to the roadway capacity used by the project traffic. Mit i gation or Avoidance: (T-3) If the O'Connell Ranch project proceeds in advance of the Glen Loma development, then a new traffic analysis will be conducted in order to address the impact on the roadway network without the implementation of the roadway improvements that are required as part of the Glen Loma project. The developer shall provide any all mitigation measures resulting from the additional traffic analysis, as needed. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 24. Significant Effect: (T-4) The ~ity of Gilroy Public Works Department has determined that the proposed hil l side development associated with the o•connell Ranch project may generate a significant increase in the routine maintenance of the roadway system over and above that required for a simi lar project in the :lat land areas of the city. Mi tigat i on or Avoid a nce: {T-4) I n accordance wi th the City 's requirements, the proposed pro j ect may be required to establ i sh a maintenance distri ct, to provide for s ervices i n the hi l lside areas, where maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the flat land subdivisions. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such pro j ects which mitigate or avo i d the significant environmental effect s t h ereof as identif i ed in the completed env i ronmental impact report. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appef?dix A -O'COnnell Ranch BIR 12 10/28/92 B. NOISE; 25. Significant Effec:tt (N-1) Apprcximatel.y 17 proposed lots along th• Santa Tera ■a Boulevard frcnt.ge, north of Hill.er Road, will be expoaad to future noi.a ■ level ■:th&t ■xchd the City•• 58-decibel residential noiN standard u a result of traffic fr0111 future buildout of ._tbe Gilroy General. Plan. Hitigation or Avoidance: (N-1) The project propo ■ea a 100 foot ■etback for all ■tractur•• on lots alonq the Santa. Tereaa Boulr,ard frontage. Exterior ■ound 1 ... 1. beyond.Ith• 100 foot eat back will rmeet City standard ■ fer rasidenti&l uN ■• Finding: Changeaior alteration• have been required in,_ or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effacta thereof as identified in the completed anvironmental impact report. 26. Significant Effect: (N-2) Conatruction of the project will reault in temporary noise impact• in the project area. construction-related noise would be ■hort-tei:m, occurring primarily during grading and construction on the aite. Mitigation or AY9idance: (N-2) construction rela~ed noise impacts will be mitigated by allowing con■truction -activitiea only Monday thrcugh Friday, between 7:00 AK and 7:00 PM. Pindinq: Cbanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, auch projects which mitigate or avoid the signit.icant environmental effects thereof aa identified in the completed environmental impact report. I. AIR QUALITY: 27. Significant Effect: (AQ-1) The project will contribute to Gilroy's total vehicular enu.ssiona on a regional level and would exceed the 150 pound per day threshold for two criteria pollutants. Regional CU111ulative emissions projected from buildout of the Gilroy area are expected to result in a threefold increase of emissions. Mitigation or Avoidance: (AQ-1) Mitigation of air quality impacts from the project vehicles, as well as for cumulative impacts, is provided by implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Control Measures encouraged by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis1:rict '91 Clean Air Plan. Effective implementation of these measures would achieve up to a five percent reduction in project emissions. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, below.) 28. S i gnificant Effect: (AQ-2) The project will generate dust and particulate9 during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation or Avoidance: (AQ-2) construction generated dust from grading will be controlled by periodic watering. Oust will also be reduced by establishing ground cover on graded surfaces where final grades are complete and pavements and structures will not be subsequently constructed. For 5.A.d Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -O'COnnell Ranch EIR 13 10/28/92 example, erosion controlling ground cover will be placed on road cute and filla abave and below roadways upon completion of final grading. ; Finding: : Chang•• or alterations have been required in·, or incorporated into, such projects :which mitigate or avoid the significant ·_- environmental effec1ta ·thereof a .siidentified in the completed environmental impact report. J. WASTEWATER TR1,ATMENT: 29. : Siqnificapt Effect: (Wl'-1) Potential impacts to groundwater qual.ity 00uld result, if impropeiily treated wastewater used for irrigation leaches nigh concen1:rations of rutratas intn the groundwater tcle, thu• contamin&ting groundwater wells. ~ Mitigation or Avoidance: (WT-1) The project will design and operate the wastewatez treatment :facility in a manner that guuantees production of high quality effluent that conforms to Title 22 of the california Administrative COde. conformance with Title 22 will, thereby, ensure compliance with Order Mo. 85-82 which prohibits nitrate impacts on groundwater. Finding: Changes or alterations have ~een required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the aignificant environmental effects thereof as identified in the complated _environmental impact report. 30. Significant Effect: (WT-2) Potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality could result from overwatering of the turf and other landscaping, which could result in surface flow ot wastewater. Mitigation or Avoidance: (WT-2) Irrigation of golf course turf and landscaped areas will be on an as needed basis only, applying no more than the volumes necessary to maintain healthy vegetation. All irrigation will cease during rainy pe.riods and retained water will be stored in a lined reservoir on the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in~ or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 31. Significant Effect: (WT-3) Potential impacts to surface and groundwater could result, if there is an escape of wastewater from the storage reservoir during a rainstorm. Mitigation or Avoidance: (WT-3) For rainy periods and periods of low consumptive demand, such as during winter months, the wastewater storage reservoirs will be sized with adequate capacity to contain the daily effluent contributions (including direct rainfall and runoff from banks and berms) during the extended rainy season corresponding to a 100 year rainfall (120 day capacity). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) "t...t .• • • Appe~dix A -o•connell Ranch EIR 14 10/28/92 · . 32. Significant Effect: (WT-4) The propoaed reclaimed wastewater etoraga r ■eervoir, if it i• unlined, may leach ■xceaaiv• nitrate• into the groundwater and contaminate groundwater wells. Mitigation or Avoidance: (WT-4) The project will construct-the reclaimed water storage reservoir with a watertight liner to prevent percolation of wastewater into the underlying aquifer(s). Monitoring of groundwater quality immediately adjacent to tbe re~ervoir will confirm the adequacy of th.a reservoir lining to prevent eeepage. Finding: Changes or alteration• have been required in, or incorporated into, such projecta which mitig•t• or avoid the •ignificant environmental ef.facts thereof as identified i~ th• completed environmental impact report. 33. Significant Effect: . (WT-5) In the event of cataclysmic disaster, the Reclamation facility and storage reservoir ma.y experience total fa.ilure and treated as well u untreated waatewatar could potentially flow into Uvas/carnadero creek. However, it such a cataclysmic event were to occur, it is unlikely that the conveyance system from the G/MBWTP to the ••t•llit• treatment plant would remain intact. Therefore, it is unlikely th&t any sewage other than the amount already on the site, would escape into th• Ovas/C&rnadero cr-k. · Mitigation or Avoidance: (WT-5) The SWRF has been designed to withstand natural disasters. The project would not be impacted by seismic events, since no faults, active or otherwise, a.re Jcnown to traverse the SWRF site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified· in the completed environmental impact report • 34. Significant Effect: (WT-6) The proposed satellite treatment plant is located within the floodplain of Uvas Creek. Potential flooding i.Jt'lpacts could occur without adequate flood protection. Mitigation or Avoidance: (Wl'-61 The project will mitigate potential flooding impacts by constructing a levee to the northeast of the reclamation plant to an elevation of 219 feet. This levee will adequacely protect the SWRF from the 100 year flood. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant. environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. K. SERVICES AND UTILITIES: . ;, 35. Significant Effect: (SU-1) The project will require water service at higher elevations than the existing water system can supply. The project will also require water storage capacity and supply beyond the capabilities of Gilroy's existing water system. Mitigation or Avoidance: (SU-l) The project will include the expansion of the Gilroy water system to serve project demands. The project. will include construction of one or more water reservoirs on the site to 5.A.d Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -O'Connell Ranch EIR 15 10/28/92 provide the necessary atorage capacity. These reservoirs will be located at an elevation sufficient to provide adequate water pressure. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, euch projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 36. Significant Effect: (S0-3) site exceed city standards because ·of station. , Emergen.cy tire response times to the tha distance to the nearest fl.re Mitigation or Avoidance: (S0-3) Construction of a new fire atation. in th.e Gcavilan Connunity College area will reduce fire response t:f,.maa. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof .as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 37. Significant Effect: (StJ-4) The project will impact police protection services requiring additional personnel and equipment in this department. service will Property tax operational Mitigation or Avoidance: (SU-4) The impact to ~lice be offset by Public Safety :Impact Pees charged. to the project. revenues will offset a part of the increased police protection costs. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant envuonmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 38. Significant Effect: (SU-5} The project will generate school-age children that will impact schools, if schools do not have available space at the time of project development. Currently, all schools in the project area ar.e impacted. Mitigation or Avoidance: (SU-5 >· The project will pay the maximum school impact fee authorized by state law at the time the building permits are issued. The developer shall, as soon as possible, negotiate with the Gilroy Unified School District to determine the level of additional impacts on the District. In the case of an impasse, the City of Gilroy shall mediate the negotiation. Following completion of the negotiations, the developer shall provide mitigation of the impacts to .the School District which may include l) impact fees, 2) dedication of land, 3) facilities and/or 4) equipment. The developer shal-1-submit .a --compl~t:ed mitigation plan to the City prior to the application for a tentative map. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 39. Significant Effect: (SU-6) The project would impact library services and would potentially impact park services. Mitigation or Avoidance: (SU-6) Library impacts will be partially offset by tax revenues generated by the project. The project is proposing to 5.A.d Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -O'COnnall Ranch IIR 16 10/28/92 pay approximately four million dollars in park fees, theratiy offsetting the demand for approximately 15 additional acre• of park land. The project will further dedicate 964 acr•• ot hillside and creekway areas to the City of Gilroy to be maintained as open ■paca. In addition, the propceed gol!.eour ■e will provide recreational opportunities. Park operation and maintenance co ■t ■ resulting from the demand of future reaidants of the project will be partially offset by tax ravanu••· Finding: Changes or alterations have J::>een required in, or incorporated into, auch projects which mitigate or avoid the ■igaificant environmental effects thereof•• identified in the compl~ed environmental impact report. 40. Significant Effect: (S0-7) The project will impact fire protection services requiring additional personnel and equipment in this department. Mitigation er Avoidance: (SU-7) The impact to fire services will be offset by Public safety Impact Fees charged to the project. Property tax revenue ■ will ?ffaet a part of the increased police protection operational coats. A new fire station is currently being conaidared to the south of the site in the Gavilan COmaunity COllage area. The Fire Department of the City of Gilroy and the Pul:ilie Works Department recommend that a professional location analysis be conducted to analyze the long term city .ccn!'!.guration and to racoumend locations of the additional fire station(a). The city baa further suggested that the major developers in the area pay for this atudy. Thia study will assure that new fire station is at the beat location to aerve th• all planned future development before funds are inveated in capital improvements for a naw fire station. The project would be required to provide adequate fire flows and water pressure to the site in order to ensure a water supply sufficient for fire ~ighting capabilities. Project roadways would be designed to provide emergency access. Project roadways would generally be no less than 20 feet in width, with no less than 13.S feet in vertical clearance. The proposed residential, golf course clubhouse, and other project structures would .be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. Risk of '"wildland" fire can be reduced in hillside areas by having a minimum 30 foot set.back between residences, garages, and structures. These 30 foot setbacks can be landscaped with irrigated plant materials, such as lawns. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental affects thereof as identifie~ in the completed environment.al ... impact report. 41. Significant Effect: (SU-SJ The City of Gilroy Public Works . Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated with the O'Connell Ranch project may generate a significant increase in the routine maintenance of water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage over and above that required for a similar project in the flat land areas of the city. In addition, the dedication of the 964 acres of open space, in its natural state, would require additional maintenance and increased hillside protection. Mi tigat i on or Avoidance: (SU-8) In accordance with the City's requirements, the proposed project may be required to establish a maintenance 5.A.d Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Appendix A -O'COMell Ranch BIR 17 10/28/92 district, to provide for services in the hillside areas (above the 280 foo~ _.;:_, contour), where maintenance costs are over and above thoa. encountered in the flat land eul:ldivisiona. The City of Gilroy wiU require that ·• ~r• ·:, Association, or some other district, be establiJabed that is responaibl• for /~ maintaining the private open space. In additiop,the City w.ill require ·that a · maintenance district, land trust, endowment, or1 acme other type of diatrict be established to ensure maintenance of the hill•i~e open ~pace areas on the project site, as a condition of project approval . Finding: Chang•• or alteratioa. have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid th• ■ignificant environmental effects thereof aa identified in the completed enwiroJUGental impact report. L. COMULATIVE IMPACTS: 42. Significant Effect: (CUM) The significant cumulative impacts of the project result from the following: 1) The incremental conversion of undeveloped land to urban-related uses or amendment of the General Plan to allow for more urban-related uses. 2} The incremental loss of agricultural land 3) Impacts of vegetation and wildlife 4) A substantial increase in traffic at the 13 intersections identified in the Subseque.nt EIR 5) A possible delay in attainment of air quality standards 6) An increase in the amcunt of groundwater withdrawn ·7) An increase in the generation of wastewater 8) An increase in quantity of stormwater runoff to Llagas Creek and Uvas Creek 9) An increase in the demand for fire service by the Gilroy Fire Dept. 10) An increase in demand for police protection 11) An increase in demand for school services Mitigation or Avoidance: (CUM) The mitigation measures for the project are as discussed above. Finding: With regard to the fellowing cumulative impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avo i d the significant cumulative environmental effects thereof as identified in ~he completed environmental impact report: l) A substantial increase in traffic at the 13 intersections identified 2)' 3) 4) 5) 6) in the Subsequent EIR An increase in the amount of groundwater withdrawn An increase in the generation of wastewater An increase in quantity of stormwater runoff to Llagas An increase in demand for police protection An increase in demand for school services Creek With regard to the remaining cumulative impacts identified above, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the subsequent environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, below.) 5.A.d Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) ,,. •• EXHIBIT B IIOIIJ:TOIUJIG PROCR.AJI • O'CONNELL RANCH FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR A m;i.tigation monitoring program has been designed for mitigation measures that wouad reduce the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project to a . les~ than significant effect. Monitoring procedures and the individuals or .· agencies responsible for their implementation are identified on the following pages for each impact and mitigation measure. Monitoring procedures are not applicable to significant unavoid.:.ble impacts,·or to those impacts 'that are leas than significant. (NOTE: FOR FULL WORDING OF COOED MITIGATION MEASURES, REFER TO EXHIBIT A.) Land Use MONITORING PROGRAM; (LO-l through L0-4) The Gilroy Planning Dir81:tor shall ensure the open space mitigation described above is implemented by reviewing the development plans prior to issuance of a grading permit •. After completion of grading, the Gilroy Planning Director shall prepare a report docwnenting compliance with the above described mitigation. Geology MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-1) The Gilroy Public Works Director shall ensure that grading impacts are limited and reduced through the implementation of the mitigation described. The Gilroy Plann i ng Director will review the devel- opment plans and determine that they incorporate the described nlitigations, prior to issuance of a grading permit. After completion of grading, the Gilroy Public Works Director shall preparing a report documenting compliance wit_h the above described mitigation. MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-2) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the geotechnical and soils investigations that provide the engineering specif i cation for grading, roadway design, foundation design, and placement of structures. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Gilroy Director of Public Works wi l l review grading plans and plans for structural foundations and footings, to insure that ~hey conform with the recommendations of geotechnical and soils ..iove~igatioas. The City •Pu~l i c Works Director shall inspect the site prior, during, and after construction to ensure that the construction is completed i n accordance with the approved MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-3) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review the erosion control plan to ensure adequate erosion control', prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Publ ic Works Director will periodically inspect the grading and construction operation to ensure conformance with the grading plan and the erosion control plan. At a minimum, the grading operation wil l be inspected i n September dur i ng the construction phase of the project, to ensure that erosion control measures are i n place prior to the rainy season. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-4} The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the geotechnical, soils, and foundation investigations that provide the engineering specification for grading, foundation design, and placement of structure ■• Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Gilroy Direc:tor of Public Works will review grading plan• and plane for atruct;ural foundation .and footing to insure that they conform with the reconaendations of gaotechnical and soils investigations. The City Public Work.a Director shall inspect the site prior, during, and after con ■tnicticn to ensure that tha construction is completed in accordance with the approved plans. Vegetation and Wildlife MONITORING PROGRAM: (~-1) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel- opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated into the project before approval of the plan. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the landscaping plan• to verify inclusion of the above mitigations. The Planning Director will inspect the site after installation of landscaping and confixm that the mitigation baa been implementacl. The site will be reinspected on an annual basis for three years to aaeure that there is a 75\ survival rate of the landscape tree• and that dead trees are replaced as nece~•ary to achieve the 75\ survival rate. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-3) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel- opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of the plan. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-4) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel- opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of the plan. The Gilroy Public Works Director will conduct periodic inspections of the grading operation to ensure that the seasonal riparian habitat designated for preservation is not disturbed by construction activities. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-5) The Monitoring Program is included in the Miti~ gation Plan to ensure that the site conditions remain suitable for California tiger salamander habitat. Site conditions that will be monitored include: breeding ponds, upl and habitat, salar:iander barriers and tunnels, and off-road vehicle fencing. This Monitoring Program will entail examination of the salamander habitat, as well as monitoring the numbers of larval salamanders. In addition, the roads adjacent to and within the project site will be mon- itored for dead salamanders. Specific monitoring activities are described on pages 24 through 33 of Appendix L. An annual report will be prepared and submitted to the Department of Fish and Game for each year of monitoring. The Gilroy Planning Director will review development plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of the plan. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Visual and Aesthetics MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-1) The Gilroy Planning Director will review (under Design Review} ■ite design, architectural plans, and la.ndacaping plan ■ to assure that visual impacts are adequately mitigated, prior to issuanc~ of any grading or building permit. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review all project landscaping plans prior to issuance of any development permits. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-3) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the location of the proposed access roads and water tanks prior to the ie ■'Qance of any development approvals. MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-1) approve the propoaed project drainage requirements, which each lot to the street, or a discharges to Vvaa Creek. Drai.nage and Flooding Xha Gilroy Public Wor~ Department will review and drainage plans for compliance with the City•• include the provision for surface drainage of storm line, or a dedicated drainage cha.nnel that MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-2) The City of Gilroy Public Works .Department will review ·and approve the project drainage plans before the issuance of improv- ment permits. Drainage plans will be required to comply with the City of Gilroy•• drainage criteria. The type and extent of drainage improvements will be evaluated as part of the project design review process. MONITORING PROGRAM: (OF-3) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department will review and approve the project drainage plans and golf course irrigation plan before the i ssuance of improvement permits. Drai nage plans will be required to comply with the City of Gilroy'& drain~ge criteria. MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-4) The applicant would be required to contribute fees to a ma i ntenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated with hil l side maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the number of dwelling units approved as part of the project. Cultural Resources MON I TORING PROGAAM: (CR-1 ) The Gilroy ?tanning Director will review project plans and verify that the site design avoids excavation in the area of arch- aeo l ogical sites. In areas where grading could affect archaeological re- sources, the pro j ect grading permit will include a provision for a qualified archeological monitor and Nat i ve American Observer to be present during the earthmoving acti vities on the archaeological site. The grading permit will include a provision specifying that, in the event that cultural resources are disturbed, a sample of the impacted resources will be recovered and recorded in accordance with current professional archaeological practices. MONITOR I NG PROGRAM: (CR-2) Th e Gilroy Planning Di rector will insure that the above mitigat i on measures are made a condit i on of development approvals. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) ... • • Traa.sport.atioD MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-1) Tbe Gilroy Plannin9 Di.rector will re•iMt the d■v■lcpnent approvals to inaure that they provide for mitigation in s,ne of the following ways: l) The mitigation is implemented by the project ·applicant by the ccmpletion of the last phase of development, or 2) The mitigation will be implemented by Caltrans or other.s by the tcompletion of the la•t pha•• of development, or 3) Funding for the mitigation ia included aa part of a tra:tfic impact f-and Gilroy will construct improvement• by c0111pletion of construction of the la ■t phase of the project. MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-2) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review the development approvals and verify that thay include the mitigation meaaure described above. MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-3) The Gilroy Director of Public Worlul will emure that the traffic impact f-in effect at the time of development approval is a condition of project approval. MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-4) The applicant would be required to contribute f-• to a maintenan.ce district a.■ a condition of project approval. The City of Gilroy Public WOrka would determine the additional expenditures associated with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the number of dwelling units approved as part of the project. Moise MONITORING PROGRAM: (N-1) The Gilroy.Planning Director will condition issuance of project building permits to the project's compliance with the City's indoor and outdoor noise level guidelines. · MONITORING PROGRAM: (N-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review gradin·g and building permits to ensure that they include the mitigation measures described above. Air-Quality MONITORING-PROGRAM: (AQ-1) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, together with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, will condition the issuance of vehicular registration renewals to the inspection and emissions testing of vehicles. The City of Gilroy Department of Planning and the Department of Public Works will review the project site plans and ensure that bikeways, pedestrian paths, and facilities providing access to public transit are included in the project. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • MONITORING PROGRAM: (AQ-2) The Gilroy ·Public Works Director will review and approve dust control measures aa conditions of •he grading peniit. To ensure that construction mitigation is implemented, fi~ project approval would be conditioned upon the receipt of a eati•factory •onstruction mitigation plan from the developer/contractar. This plan wouldjepecify the methods of control that will be utilized, demoastrate the,availabi,lity of equipment and per- sonnel, and identify a responsible individual w•o, can authorize additional measures, if warranted. I Wastewater ':treat.eat · MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-1) ! The ::tesign a!ld Op!!t&tion of wastawl\ter treatment facilities and use of reclaimed wastewater for µ-rigation purposes · is subject to the requirements of Title 22 of the :california Administrative Code, admin- istered by the Regional Wate:r Quality Control Board. The Regional Water Quality Control Board will review and approve.the design and operation plane for the wastewater treatment facility, ·and receive scheduled effluent monitor- ing data to ensure compliance with reclaimed waat~ater quality standards. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-2) The golf course gr ■enskeeper will be responsible for maintaining proper irrigation practices and ensuring that the golf course turf and landscaped areas are not overwatered. The greenskeeper ·will prepare an annual report summarizing the success in preventing the runoff of excess irrigation water. The Director of Public Works will review this annual report and periodically inspect the irrigation operation. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-3} The •dasign and size of the wastewater storage reservoirs will be reviewed and approved by the Gilroy Public Works Director prior to issuance of building permits. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-4) The design of the wastewater storage reservoir will be subject to the review of the Gilroy Public Works Director and the Regional Water Quality control Board official. Monitoring of groundwater quality would be reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-5) The design and construction of the satellite wastewater treatment facility will be reviewed by the Gilroy Public Works Director and Regional Water Quality Control Board official. The wastewater treatment plant will be required to meet current eart~quake safety criteria for a public facility. The final wastewater treatment mitigation will be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. A project sewer master plan will be required and must be in agreement with the City-wide Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The project sewer master plan must address phasing of the project sewer and be in concert with the project water and storm drainage master plan phasing. MONITORING PROGRAM: {WT-6) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the plans for the wastewater treatment facility and associated levee prior to issuance of any building permits. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • SerYi.c•• and Vt..il..it..i•• MONITORING P.ROGRAM: (SU-1) Tb• propoaed wat ■r ■y ■tem will be required to meet City of Gilroy at.andarda. The Gilroy Public Worka Dir■c:tor will review and approve the design of the water system prior to i ■suance of any improvement approvals. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-3) Th• Gilroy City Fire Chief will review the project plan• and confirm that adequate reapons• times can be achieved prior to is-· suing occupancy permits • .KONITORINt; PROGRAM: (SU-4) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap- proval of the project to the provision of adequate police protect.ion to ■arve the ■ite. MONITORING PROGRAM: (S0-5) The ·Gilroy Planning Director will condition proj- ,:-·. act approvals to include paymant of th• appropriate school impact fee ■• If the Gilroy Onified School District determines th.a.t the project will impact schools beyond th• level offset by school impact fees, the applicant shall, as soon as possible (and before issuance of any building permits), negotiate with th■ School Diat.rict and th• city and agree to furnish funds and facilities that will fully mitigate such impac:ta. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-6) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap- proval of the project upon the dedication of approximately 964 acres to the City of Gilroy tor cpen apace use. The City cf Gilroy will alao condition ·appro•a.l of the project upon the payment of park fees. Future residents of the project will be required to pay County property taxes, a portion of which will be distributed to the local parks and library maintenance. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-7) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap- proval of the project to the provision of adequate fire protection to serve the site. Tha applicant would be required to contribute fees to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-8) The applicant may be required to contribute fees to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated with hillside maintenance, a .nd would then divide the ~roper assessment by the number of dwelling units approved as part of the project. 5.A.d Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUB.SEQUENT ENVrRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE O'CONNELL RANCH This Addendum addresses revised partial mitigation measures and a change in the project eliminating the proposed construction of a Satellite Wastewater Reclamation Facility ("SWRF") in conjunction with tentative map application TM96-05 and architectural and site approval A/S 96-17 and is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15164. On October 26, 1992, the City Council of Gilroy adopted Resolution No. 92-79 which approved General Plan Amendment GPA 90-04 for the O'Connell Ranch project. In conjunction with the approval and as set forth in Res . 92-79, the City Council found that it had taken all actions required by CEQA for the project and made the findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 regarding project impacts and project alternatives. Because only partial mitigation could be provided for some significant effects, the Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15093. The Council also adopted a mitigation/monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 . The EIR certified for the project expressly included all future discretionary approvals, including tentative map and architectural and site design. Subsequently, tentative map application TM 96-05 and architectural and site application A/S 96-17 have set forth more specific details of the project and caused the City to further review and refine the following mitigation measures imposed as partial mitigation for this project's impacts . I. Unavoidable Significant Effects on Land Use {LU-I) and on Visual and Aesthetic Quality (VA-2) In Res. 92-79, the City Council found that unavoidable significant effects on land use and on visual and aesthetic quality would likely result from this project in that the open space and visual character of the project site would change with the construction of homes and a golf course. In partial mitigation for these unavoidable impacts, the City Council adopted the following mitigation measures : LU-3 The project will be required to provide a minimum of two access points to the future Uvas Creek Preserve along the Filice property. The future visitors to the preserve, however, wiJI be excluded from the adjacent golf course. VA-2 (in relevant part) Potential visual impacts from Uvas Creek will be reduced . . . by the presence of a trail system on the south side of Uvas Creek, which is part of the Uvas Park Preserve trail system. Upon further consideration, the City Council finds that design standards and risk factors would require the City to construct a significant golf barrier/fence to protect the public utilizing the south side Uvas Creek trail from golf ball injury . This barrier would constitute a new, adverse visual impact of the project. IRPJ\316856 .02 63-00110 4706002 -1-EXHIBIT Bl 5.A.d Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • The City and applicant have considered alternative partial mitigation measures. It was agreed that a Class I trail project would be constructed by the applicant in lieu of the trail easement and two-point access. The applicant has agreed to Master Plan both the future south and north creekside Class I trail connections that will be needed at Santa Teresa Boulevard, and bas offered to contribut e towards the cost of the north creekside Class I trail connection and connect it downstream to the end of the existing north creekside Class I trail in Uvas Creek Park Preserve . (See the C lass I trail connection plans and conditions called out on Sheet 13 of the A/S96-17 plan set.) Replacing partial mitigation measures LU-3 and VA-2, the following measure as partial mitigation and the accompanying mitigation/measuring program is adopted : Public Path . Agreement between the Developer and the City. The Developer shall pay the costs of Master Planning and constructing the Class I trail segment according to the City's specifications from the western terminus of the Uvas Creek Trail to Santa Teresa Boulevard , in lieu of providing a 35 foot Uvas Creek Trail easement with two access points along the Eagle Ridge frontage. The amount and form of payment shall be determined by the City Engineer. The Developer has agreed to Master Plan to the City's specifications both the future south and north creekside Class I trail connections that will be needed at Santa Teresa Boulevard . The Developer has agreed lo pay the costs of the future north side Class I trail connection including the Santa Teresa Boulevard connection which will be connected to the existing Class I trail that terminates at Laurel Drive and Uvas Park Drive. The north side trail connection will be constructed by the City of Gilroy as part of the City of Gilroy 's Uvas Creek Park Preserve -Phase II project. The south side Class I trail connection will be a future City improvement. The City of Gilroy will assume responsibility for easement and/or acquisition of property for the Class I trail connection . Mitigation/monitoring program : The above mitigation 1s a condition of TM96-05 . The Gilroy City Engineer will require compliance prior to final map approval. In partial mitigation for unavoidable significant effects on land use, the City Council also adopted the following : \R PJJ16856.02 63-09110 4706002 LU-2 (in relevant part) ... the City will require that a maintenance district , land trust, endowment, or some other type of district be -2- 5.A.d Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • established to ensure maintenance of the hillside open space areas on the project site, as a condition of project approval . The City has now determined that in order to control open space dedicated to the public, it will maintain or designate another agency to maintain the public open space . In partial mitigation, the following mitigation measures and mitigation/monitoring plan are adopted: Prior to City acceptance of the public open space, the applicant shall work with the City to help resolve the issues of operation and maintenance of the public open space, including the possible need for funding and related options which may include, but are not limited to : a maintenance district, land trust , endowment or some other type of district acceptable to the City. The Developer shall establish a 30-foot wide fire easement on aU "B" lots that back up to a hillside . Easements shall provide physical accessibility for fire fighting equipment such as trucks and crawler- type tractors. Provisions shall be made in the CC&Rs to install and maintain appropriate landscaping for fire zones and shall include permanent irrigation by the Homeowners Association . Such improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Marsha]. Mitigation/monitoring program: These measures are conditions of approval of TM96-05 . The City Engineer shall approve prior to approval of final map the disposition of maintenance of the public open space and the Fire Marshal shall review and approve the plans for fire fighting improvements prior to approval of final map . II. Potential Significant Effects on Water Quality (WT-1, WT-5 and WT-6) In Res . 92-79. the City Council found that potential significant effects on groundwater contamination could likely result from the processing of sewage on-site in the Satellite Wastewater Reclamation Facility . In mitigation of impacts, the City Council adopted the following mitigation measures : IR PJ.:3 16856 .02 63-091 104706002 WT-1 The project wi ll design and operate the wastewater treatment facil ity in a manner that guarantees production of high quality effluent that confonns to Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. Conformance with Title 22 will , thereby, ensure compliance with Order No . 85-82 which prohibits nitrate impacts on groundwat er . WT-5 The SWRF has been designed to withstand natural disasters . The project would not be impacted by seismic events, since no faults, active or otherwise, are known to traverse the SWRF site. -3- 5.A.d Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • WT -6 The project will mitigate potential flooding impacts by constructing a levee to the northeast of the reclamation plant to an elevation of 219 feet. This levee will adequately protect the SWRF from the l 00 year flood . At the time that the Subsequent Final EnvironmentaJ Impact Statement for the O 'Connell Ranch was prepared , the capacity of the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Wastewater Treatment Plant was either being used or committed, which necessitated the need for the SWRF. Subsequently, a new wastewater plant was constructed and capacity has been made available . The project will now hook up to municipal sewage service. This change precludes the need for the SWRF, and eliminates the impacts that would have been caused by that component of the project. Therefore, the aforementioned mitigation measures are no longer required by the City . The City finds that the use of an Addendum is appropriate because _ only a few minor changes in mitigation measures are necessary and the conditions calling for a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 do not exist in that there are no new significant effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects or changed circumstances or major changes in the project or mitigation measures which impact the environment. ln fact, the changes lessen or elim inate the potential for adverse environmental impacts. For example , the change to the project from an on-site package sewage treatment plant to connection with the new wastewater treatment plant eliminates several adverse, environmental impacts of the project, including the risk of nitrates leaching into the groundwater, the risk of contamination to Uvas Creek in the event of a cataclysmic disaster to the SWRF and any risk of flooding the SWRF in the event of a l 00 year flood . Therefore, in light of the whole record and on the basis of all of the evidence before it , the City Council expressly finds that while the foregoing changes or additions are necessary, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guideline 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. IRPJ\316856 .02 63-09110 4700002 -4- 5.A.d Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • ·• EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A/S 96-0S EAGLE RIDGE PROJECT Exhibit "C", Page 1 of 2 I. MITIGATION MEASURES as revised from the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), shall be applied to the PUD approval . 2. For each approved build-out year (1997 through 2005), the developer will be allowed to receive building permits , for individual homes , in number corresponding directly to the amount granted to the project by the City Council under the 1992/1994 RDO allocations (RD 92-03 and RD 94-01). 3. The construction ·of individual homes shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 5.50, entitled "Site Design Requirements ", pertaining to proposed individual dwelling unit designs , subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. 4 . Landscaping plans shall include golf course and landscaping maintained by the future homeowners association . Landscaping plans including specifications for an irrigation system shall be approved by the Planning Division in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscaping Policy, prior to issuance of a building permit . The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in an orderly, live , healthy, and relatively weed-free condition, in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscaping Policy and the approved specific landscape plan. 5 . The development of all single family lots designated as "estate" on submitted PUD design plans shall be subject to the Architectural & Site Review approval by stafl: and shall be consistent with the Ciy's Hillside Development Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance . 6. The development of the proposed golf course club house and associated improvements shall be subject to the Architectural & Site Review approval by staff: and shall be consistent with the Ciy 's Zoning Ordinance. 7 . Potential development improvements, involving private open space lands , for potential access to the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan , as part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail system, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and the City Council . The Reservoir Canyon access location shall be considered first priority. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EAG LE RIDGE -A/S 96-17 EXHIBIT C -PAGE 1 OF 2 5.A.d Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • Exhibit "C", Page 2 of 2 8 . Specific language shall be incorporated within the project CC&R's to strictly regulate the construction ofreplacement fencing along Santa Teresa Boulevard and requiring adequate landscape screening of year yards . In addition , all fence replacement shall be maintained by the project homeowner's association. 9 . The applicant shall replace all trees removed from the site using a minimum replacement ratio of 3 : I , with a minimum tree size of 1 5 gallons, subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. 10 . The final golf course design (to include grading) and specific location for all improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department . 11. All water (potable, recycled, or other) features, ponds, and holding facilities, and their specific location, shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. 12 . AJI security gate locations, features , and landscaping (both occupied and un-occupied), shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. 13 . All homeowner's association facilities (both occupied and un-occupied), shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. 14 . House elevation and designs used for the serpentine knoll , shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EAGLE RIDGE -A/S 96-17 EXHIBIT C -PAGE 2 OF 2 5.A.d Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) • • I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 96-57 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the -----'-3=r~d ....... _day of September, 19~, at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNHSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 19 96. {Seal) -~s~t=h ....... _day of September 5.A.d Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 5.A.d Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Resolution 1996-57 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) City of Gilroy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy CA 95020 (408) 846-0440, main  (408) 846-0429, fax www.cityofgilroy.org/planning Minor Modification Checklist Revised 07/17/2019 MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Your success is our success! The application submittal checklist is an essential document towards successful processing of your development request. We want to help you achieve the best project possible, while fulfilling the community’s goals and expectations of policies contained in the Gilroy General Plan and other important documents. We understand that processing your appl ication with minimal delay is important, and we will do everything we can to provide an expeditious process for your request. Why all the details? Each submittal item is important to clearly, entirely, and accurately illustrate and describe your project for city staff, the community, and decision-makers. These details are necessary to demonstrate how your project meets various development standards and regulatory requirements. Unnecessary delays (later in the process) can be avoided with this clear understanding of your request at the beginning. A more detailed application submittal will result in better comprehension of your proposal. No partial application packages, please! In order to efficiently review your application, p lanning staff cannot accept partial submittal packages, or poor quality graphics. Detailed information in this packet is provided for your convenience. In addition, staff is available to assist with clarifications on the required submittal items or permit process. Who can prepare the plans? The plans must be prepared by a professional designer, such as an architect, landscape architect, civil engineer, or a drafting service, unless the applicant can demonstrate an appropriate level of graphic ability. In most cases, plans to be submi tted for building and/or engineering permits (after the Planning permit process) must be prepared by specific licensed professionals, and having these professionals prepare plans for the planning permit may save time later. APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED BY APPOINTMENT ONLY (call 408-846-0440) 5.A.e Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: MM 20-19, Approval (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Minor Modification Checklist Revised 7/17/2019 Planner Check Off Note: Refer to the Application Submittal Details (ASD) document for clarification and City expectations regarding the below checklist items. Number of Copies Signed Owner / Applicant Certification 1 Minor Modification Supplemental Questionnaire (attached) 1 Planning Application & Indemnification Agreement (ASD 6) 2 Site Plan (Ex. A) 1 Current photos (ASD 2) 1 Planning Application Fees (ASD 4) 1 Building Elevations (Ex. B) 2* Material Sample Board (ASD 2) 1* Floor Plan(s) - if any change in land use proposed (Ex. B) 2* Arborist Report (ASD 1) 1* Additional Information – as requested by staff * Example: * If applicable (as noted by planner) (ASD 6) = Page six (6) of the Application Submittal Details document (Ex. B) = Exhibit B of the Application Submittal Details document **The Minor Modification process allows streamlined development review for certain minor requests. By providing the expedited process (often instead of the more formal Architectural and Site Permit), applicants can appreciate significant tim e and cost savings. Minor Modification requests are only for those proposals that involve minimal staff time for submittal, review and approval (typically “over the counter”), such as:  Minor site and landscaping changes, to approved developments  Addition of impervious surface area of less than 2,500 square feet  Parking lot reconfiguration without loss of required parking spaces  Minor non-residential building additions and accessory structures not exceeding 1,000 square feet  Minor residential building additions and accessory structures not exceeding 250 square feet  Above-ground storage tanks: up to 10,000 gallons (industrial zones) and 2,000 gallons (non-industrial)  Non-residential demolitions of less than 1,000 square feet  Minor adjustments to historic sites or historic districts that do not affect the historic significance onsite In order to maintain the cost-effectiveness of the Minor Modification review process, the Community Development Director or designee has the authority to require an Architectural and Site Permit for proposals anticipated to require significant staff efforts, even for items enumerated above (reference GCC 30.50.41(b) for full text). OWNER / APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I, (print), owner / applicant (or representative of the applicant) for this planning permit, do hereby state that I have provided the materials listed above, and that these materials have been submitted following the instructions provided by Planning Division in the submittal requirements form for this permit. If, at my request, this application is significantly amended, including but not limited to number of units, stories, height, setbacks, site circulation, site plan layout, or the need for additional discretionary permits, I understand this will require submission of a new application, including fees and checklist items. I understand that my application may be rejected (within 30 days of submittal or resubmittal) due to missing or incomplete information as required. I also understand that additional fees and subsequent information may be required during the course of processing this request as determined by planning staff pursuant to State Government Code Section 65944. _______________________________________ ____________________________________________ Date Signature MINOR MODIFICATION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Ryan Dinsmore 05/11/2020 5.A.e Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: MM 20-19, Approval (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Minor Modification Checklist Revised 7/17/2019 (Include additional pages, if necessary) 1. Describe the existing use of the property: ____________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Describe the proposed changes: ___________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (sign after Conditions of Approval provided, below) I, (print), applicant (or representative of the applicant) for this planning permit, have read and understand the recommended Conditions of Approval, below. By my signature below, I accept these Conditions of Approval, and understand that the Community Develo pment Director’s (or designee’s) decision on this application is final per GCC Section 30.50.41(b). If the Community Development Director denies this request, I understand that I can file an application for an appropriate development permit. Date Signature PLANNING DIVISION USE ONLY Date Filed: _______________ Fees: _____________ By: _________________________ Check one: Approved Denied Conditions of Approval: _____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Turf mow-strip / park strip Remove turf, overhead irrigation, plant (13) trees 30' Acer rubrum o.c. Install drip irrigation, plant low to medium water - use perennials, and mulch to finish Ryan Dinsmore 05/11/2020 Philip Angelo$320 6/24/2020 1. This approval is granted for new landscaping placed within an ~390’ section of the existing parkstrip located on the southwest side of Eagle Ridge Drive, with uniform 30’ spacing as indicated on the approved plans. 2. A separate architectural and site approval shall be required for any further changes to planting within the parkstrip in the tract to maintain a uniform appearance and comply with the City Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements. Removal of sod and replacement with new water efficient understory landscaping is encouraged. 3. This approval is valid for one (1) year after the date of permit issuance. 4. A final inspection with the planning division will be required to ensure installation conforms to approved plans. 5.A.e Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: MM 20-19, Approval (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) From:ray ivicevich To:Phil Angelo Subject:Appeal Letter for granted permission on Eagle Ridge Drive Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:59:11 PM Gentlemen of the Planning Commission , I am appealing the above project for several reasons including: 1. The City of Gilroy is altering the Uniformity of our PUD Trees that line the main roads throughout the neighborhoods are Sycamores. 6/23/20 Phil Angelo wrote "From my site visit it appeared that there was a different tree selection on either side of the proposed improvement. We would typically require that the landscape treatment to be uniform along an entire lane for a project like this. " Phil goes on to request further information and states that " Future projects should also be permitted as a part of a consolidated planting plan for the entire tract / subdivision the improvements are intended instead of individual mow , strips." A PUD is designed to provide Uniformity and this in turn provides security to the Homeowners/Tax Payers . We sign and agree to our CC&Rs , we see the look of neighborhood when we buy in this community and as taxpayers we expect the City to uphold the PUD to ensure that Uniformity continues throughout our neighborhoods as Uniformity is key to preserving the appearance of our community which in turn serves to uphold our property prices. I do not understand why the City is making an exception with this case . Why is a consolidated plan not being sought by the City immediately ? Especially as the City is aware that the Board of Directors have been making Unpermitted changes to our PUD. 2) City of Gilroy is in effect providing retrospective planning permission By approving this bid for Eagle Ridge Drive the City of Gilroy is therefore complicit in breaking their own regulations by permitting this project and furthermore this will be seen as supporting the unlawful actions of our Board of Directors and approving all the alterations the Board has made in our community to date and encouraging them not to follow the PUD . The City is aware that CMS our management company ( who are to be replaced by September 2020 ) have visited your offices to identify how obtain retrospective planning permission for Muirfield Drive . This project removed 29 mature and protected Sycamore Trees in the middle of June 2019 and replaced them with Red Maple Trees. No approved plans , No Community vote , no permits , No CEQA , no Arborists Report , violated the Migratory Bird act for nesting Birds in nest season. The City has been informed of a significant impending lawsuit concerning this action and this approval could amplify the Cities appearance as a Co Conspirator. Also , is the City aware that this project connects and is next to a Tree Planting and a mow strip conversion that was done without approved plans and permits. 5.A.f Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Not one project , Muirfield , Eagle Ridge Drive or the Test Plantings were Voted on or approved by our Community. 3) City lack of liaison with other departments such Fire Marshall Long sections of Eagle Ridge Drive do not have trees in them. It appears the areas the areas without trees are adjacent to open space areas. It does not appear that there has been correspondence with the Fire Marshall to confirm that the planting of trees in these locations would conform with fire safety protocols. Eagle Ridge Drive is a major defense artery for Fire Fighting Equipment and should have as many turn around and staging areas as possible. This project is directly in front of such an area and was thought best not to have trees planted so as to not to inhibit procedures . We should have consider the implications of new landscaping before this was approved. 4) Insufficient Research by the City before approving the Red Maple Tree and failure to comply and uphold our PUD. Resolution no. 96-57 page 4 point 7 discusses that the project in its inception that RJA were the engineers for the project and they note that existing natural topographic landmarks and sensitive archeological and habitat areas were carefully into the design of Eagle Ridge. Therefore there is a reason Sycamores were chosen as to maintain the natural habitat and character and site function of the development. The City approved the Tree species originally for reasons the City are clearly aware of and yet is now saying that a change to a tree type is the concern of the HOA alone. This is clearly incorrect if you read the resolution 96-57 . Furthermore once in existence a PUD needs to be upheld by the City . 5) Insufficient research and lack of due diligence in granting the permit to plant a non native , root aggressive Red Maple and the Autumn Blaze . Both Trees are non native and both have aggressive root systems and prone to disease and sensitive bark that easily breaks and not recommended to be planted next to roads or pathways. I have asked for many times a ISA Certified Master Arborists report about the trees and not a biased vendor recommendation or a biased report from a vendor employed arborist. No response. All you have to do is look it up and it states that it is not a fit for our environment. 6) City allowing and condoning piecemealing and using a Minor Mod for a major alteration to our PUD The City is aware and acknowledges that the Board Members of Eagle Ridge are piece mealing changes to our community . The City is aware That common area landscaping has been altered without permission from the city . I believe Kraig states that a Minor Mod is usable in this case because it is under 2500 sq ft and our PUD does not apply. The 2500 sq ft is for impervious surfaces . We are not putting in a road or asphalt or cement. Also in the publishing code for Minor Modifications is section 30.50.42 which states that a site development plan and architectural drawings accompany the application , if the development is to be carried out in sections , then each section is to be shown on a new overall master plan. Ordinance no 2013 08 €2 (exhA) 8-5-13. I am appealing the fact that Kraig is making arbitrary decisions or one time decisions that have lasting and repeating affects on our community. I am appealing the fact that this is a self serving project by the one of Board Members , across from his home , to achieve a personal look of 5.A.f Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) of an East Coast landscape. It is unclear as to why the City has therefore not insisted on an overall plan before approving this work or even considered the retrospective application on Muirfield. I am appealing the exceptions the City appears to be making in this case . Thank You Ray Ivicevich 5.A.f Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Resolution No. 2020-XX 1 M 20-11 Resolution No. 2020-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY DENYING AN APPEAL M 20-11 AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR MODIFICATION PERMIT MM 20-19, WHICH PERMITS THE PLANTING OF RED MAPLE (ACER RUBRUM) TREES AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IN AN EXISTING PARKSTRIP LOCATED ALONG EAGLE RIDGE DRIVE, BETWEEN COUNTY DOWN WAY AND PORTMARNOCK WAY, AND FURTHER REVISING MM 20-19 CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, the Community of Eagle Ridge Owners Association submitted an application for Minor Modification Permit Application MM 20-19 requesting approval to replace existing sod with (13) new Red Maple (Acer Rubrum) trees and landscaping for (390) lineal feet along Eagle Ridge Drive, between County Down Way and Portmarnock Wa y, adjacent to the open space at 7151 Eagle Ridge Drive; and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned RH-PUD, being part of the combined Eagle Ridge Planned Unit Development, and Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 30.50.41 (b)(1) states that the Community Development Director or designee may approve changes to previously approved development permits, but only for but only for minor modification of architectural elements, lighting, or landscaping details ; and WHEREAS, no further environmental analysis is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15304(b) (Minor Alterations of Land) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, Planning Staff conducted a field inspection of the present site and observed the existing site conditions and four new trees that had been installed within the project area; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2020, the Planning Division issued approval MM 20-19 minor modification permit for the parkstrip planting program, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, Ray Ivicevich submitted a letter appealing Planning Division approval of MM 20-19 to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2020, the Community of Eagle Ridge Owners Association provided a response addressing Ray Ivicevich’s appeal letter and providing additional information clarifying the project scope as a total of (520) lineal feet of landscaping with (17) Red Maple (Acer Rubrum) trees, which includes the four trees observed by staff during its field visit; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2020, the City of Gilroy Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing where the application materials, staff report, and public testimony were considered; and 5.A.g Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Resolution of Approval M 20-11 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Resolution No. 2020-XX 2 M 20-11 WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Project approval is based is the official of the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, has considered the appeal of MM 20-19, and after due study, deliberation and public hearing, makes the following findings: (A) The proposed landscaping project MM 20-19 is consistent with the initial Planned Unit Development and conditions of approval, which are detailed in Gilroy City Council Resolution 1996-57. (B) The proposed landscaping project MM 20-19 is in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and other applicable standards and regulations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby denies the appeal, and upholds the approval of MM 20-19, subject to the following revised conditions: GENERAL PROJECT CONDITIONS: 1. This approval is granted for new landscaping including Red Maple (Acer Rubrum) trees, shrubs, and mulch ground cover to be placed within an ~520’ section of existing parkstrip located on the southwest side of Eagle Ridge Drive, with uniform 30’ tree spacing as indicated in the approved plans and demonstrated in the photos from the site visit on June 23, 2020. 2. A separate architectural and site approval shall be required for any further changes to planting within the parkstrip in the tract to maintain a uniform appearance and comply with the City Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements. Removal of sod and replacement with new water efficient understory landscaping is encouraged. 3. This approval is valid for one (1) year after the date of issuance. 4. A final inspection with the planning division will be required to ensure installation conforms to approved plans. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY, this 20th day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: 5.A.g Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Resolution of Approval M 20-11 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Resolution No. 2020-XX 3 M 20-11 ________________________ ___________________________ Karen L. Garner, Secretary Tom Fischer, Chair 5.A.g Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Resolution of Approval M 20-11 (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 1 Community of Eagle Ridge Home Owners Association August 7, 2020 To: Our Honorable City of Gilroy Planning Commission, The Eagle Ridge Homeowners Associations Board of Directors would like to respond to the Appeal, filed by Mr. Ray Ivicevich, against the Eagle Ridge Drive Renovation Project. This project was previously approved by the City Planning Department and we request that this appeal by Mr. Ivicevich be declined. The attached document (Attachment 1) provides extensive background and for the Eagle Ridge Drive Renovation Project. This project is the result of several years of effort by the Association to find an alternative tree as a replacement for American Sycamores that with their aggressive roots have been causing extensive and costly damage to the community sidewalks (See Attachment 2) creating trip and fall safety hazards throughout the Eagle Ridge Community. As discussed in the attached document, the Red Maple was selected because it resembles the American Sycamore in height and canopy, hence maintaining the land scape architecture of our sidewalks consistent with our PUD design intent, and has less aggressive roots and when planted with root barrier and drip system deep water bubblers, making it more suitable for the narrow four foot wide mow strips in Eagle Ridge. Hence, Mr. Ivicevich’s claim, implying that the Red Maple has more aggressive roots than the Sycamore, and as such not suitable for our mow strip is not true and not based on facts. In his appeal, Mr. Ivicevich, aside from superfluously accusing the city of not doing it’s job, is also not fully informed of the background and rationale for this project and represents a very small minority viewpoint asking the Commission to reverse the city approval. As a member of our association, Mr. Ivicevich has the right to express his opinion. However, Eagle Ridge has 934 homes with a population of around 4000, many of whom have experienced the damage the sycamore trees have done to their homes and yards. In the end, all the residents are paying for the excessive and ongoing increasing cost of repairs to the sidewalks. So far the HOA has not experienced any lawsuits due to trip and fall incidents, but the number of such occurrences is increasing every year. Our fear is that sometime soon we will have an incident where significant injuries are incur red and will be litigated for damages, unless we can show in good faith that we are addressing the problem with a plan in place. Doing nothing is not an option. 5.A.h Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 2 We started a demonstration project initially planting 4 Red Maples surrounded by draught tolerant plants instead of grass in 120 linear feet, in 2018 / 2019 timeframe (Attachment 3) and asked residents for feedback. No negative feedback was received. The Eagle Ridge Drive Project that is the subject of this appeal is to complete the demonstration project (Attachment 4). We started the permit process which formerly was not required by the city being private property until 2019 as we understand. We have asked for a permit to complete the remaining 400 ft of replacing the grass mow strip consisting of 13 additional 30 foot sections, with correspondingly adding 13 Red Maple trees. This will include replacing the high water dependent grass with the low water usage drought tolerant bushes and shrubs with drip irrigation which coincide with the City’s water conservation initiatives. This demonstration project will show over time how well the Red Maples will perform and blend with the existing adjacent sycamores on the street. As described in the attached document, the intent is to use the Red Maple only when an American Sycamore tree dies or has to be removed because the root damage it is causing cannot be mitigated other than by removal and replacement . So to be clear, there is no consolidated plan as Mr. Ivicevich is implying in his appeal. Please remember the permit is for an additional 13 red maples to be planted with drought tolerant scrubs and bushes in a section of mow strip where only grass currently is in place. Also, this project is totally separate from the Muirfield renewal that was implemented in 2018. The Association has done its due diligence with the City’s initial approval. We would respect the Planning Commission’s objective review of this matter with a decision based on the facts and discount any argument that “we just don’t like it”. Keep in mind the current configuration continues to be a safety concern of raised concrete sidewalks being a trip and fall hazard as well as causing damage to HOA and resident’s property. Respectfully, Eagle Ridge Home Owners Association Board of Directors. ____________________________________ August 7, 220_______ Hosein Fallah, Board President Date . Attachments HoseinFallah 5.A.h Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 3 Attachment 1 WHY THE EAGLE RIDGE RENEWAL PROJECT? A very few residents have raised some concerns over the Eagle Ridge Drive renovation project. The Board wanted to provide the rationale why we decided to go forward with this project. The reasons for the pilot project on Eagle Ridge Drive are included below: 1. The Board of Directors has been struggling with the damage that the American Sycamores with their aggressive roots systems have been causing in the community. These trees, which were planted by the original builder had no root barriers and have been the cause of significant costly damage to sidewalks and residents’ driveways and landscaping. This has resulted in significant increasing cost for the HOA as these trees mature. 2. The HOA has been searching for an alternative tree that resembles closely to the sycamores in height and canopy but have less aggressive root system to replace sycamores when it becomes necessary to remove one. This is anticipated to be rare and considered on a case by case basis along with root pruning as a first measure. The consensus among arborist and landscape professionals we consulted, has been that the Red Maple is the best alternative given the narrow four foot wide mow strip where the vast majority of these trees reside. So, about four years ago, the Board adopted Red Maple as the replacement for the American Sycamore going forward, with the vision of renewal and the intention to at some later time be propagated throughout the development as the situation deemed appropriate in a phased manner. For example when a Sycamore tree had to be removed for whatever reason, (a fix on fail approach).While the Red Maple is not ideal in mow strip applications either, it is better suited than the Sycamore and is the best balance for similar canopy height, canopy width and smaller trunk size. When planted initially with root barriers and a non-surface watering system like bubblers, it was the best choice available for a strategic replacement tree. 3. Once the tree had been replaced, the surrounding mow strip should be converted to drought tolerant water efficient landscaping. Much the same as the developers did on the new built homes on the Pitlochry Drive section in 2013 / 2014. 4. This section of Eagle Ridge Drive pilot project is approximately 520 linear feet of mow strip which was originally underdeveloped with no trees planted. This section is one of two sections in all of the Eagle Ridge community that the builder did not plant trees, so in a sense short changing the community and just installed grass with typical surface irrigation, (sprinklers). This is planned to be replaced with drip irrigation and drought tolerant plants. 5. There are houses on only one side of the street. The mow strip renovation is on the opposite side of where the homes are located therefore, eliminating any direct impact for a resident being in close proximity to their home for implementing a pilot renewal project. 6. The total project will Install a total of 17 Red Maples (4 have been planted previously in a 120 ft. test section), with 13 additional Red Maples being planned in this project along this 5.A.h Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 4 strip to see how they perform and look over time for consideration to implement in the rest of the development when tree replacement is warranted. 7. Per the City of Gilroy following the City water reduction initiatives, convert any areas where possible, from grass to a more drought tolerant and water efficient landscape, using drip system irrigation for the shrubs, and bubblers for tree irrigation, as oppose to the high water usages surface sprinklers needed for grass. Using a drip / bubbler system will also tend to deter surface roots emanating from the trees. 8. The project will demonstrate the cost benefit of the renewal approach for the community in terms of water saving and maintenance of the sprinkler system and grass cutting. Over time on as needed basis, we will eliminate the surface sprinklers which were causing the Sycamore trees to have destructive huge roots which elevated concrete. This is not only a public safety hazard, but also, as stated previously, very costly to replace the concrete. So far the HOA has spent tens of thousands of reserve money to repair these unsafe sidewalks and cut and trim the invasive Sycamore tree roots. The Red Maple tree has been the selected tree to replace the Sycamore for more than 4 years. This was the direction the HOA went after talking with various landscape vendors. It is again due to it similar characteristics to the Sycamore in canopy height and spread with a smaller trunk size. Also this is only in the rare occasion a Sycamore needs to be removed This particular project that has been in planning for over two years and was started when the Board staged an initial pilot about 15 months ago on a 120 ft section of Eagle Ridge Drive. This included (Four Red Maples with the water tolerant landscaping design and water efficient irrigation), to see how it looked and how it was received by the residents. Most residents approved of the change as well as do not have to have the mow and blow service come by weekly. But the full effect of the project will take a few years for the trees to mature more and the plants stabilize. The cost of the remaining portion of the demonstration project is about $22K with possible water saving rebate up to $1,500 to $2,000 per year according to Alpine Landscaping. This compared to $119,000 that the HOA spent on just Sycamore damage to sidewalk concrete slaps and associated cost of tree damages last year. This figure does not include the tens of thousands of dollars the HOA has had to reimburse homeowners for damage caused by Sycamore tree roots to their properties. The status of this project is that Eagle Ridge HOA has applied to the City of Gilroy for permits which we have been informed that the City has approved pending the outcome of an appeal. We thought it was important to let all parties know the rationale behind this project and the reason for a very gradual change from American Sycamore to Red Maple being one of public safety and cost savings while maintaining the character of the development. 5.A.h Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 5 Attachment 2 5.A.h Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 6 5.A.h Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 7 5.A.h Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 8 5.A.h Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 9 5.A.h Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 10 5.A.h Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 11 Attachment 3 5.A.h Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 12 Attachment 4 5.A.h Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Planning Staff - The following is an excerpt taken from the Owner’s association arborist and provided by the owner’s association as part of their rebuttal to Ray’s appeal letter: “Hi Tom, It was a pleasure meeting you last week out at Eagle Ridge. Per our inspection please see our answers to the questions provided for the tree root issue at 7150 Lahinch Dr. 1) Current assessment of the situation with respect to root damage and future damage if left unaddressed. The current situation at 7150 Lahinch Dr. involves a young European Sycamore or London Plane Tree (Platanus x hispanica). The root system of this tree has outgrown the available space in its existing curb planting strip. As a result the roots have damaged hardscape and intruded into the homeowners front yard. It is highly likely the roots are under the driveway and front patio of this home. If left unaddressed the root system will continue to expand and cause damage to the curb and gutter as well as potential foundation and utility damage. It should also be noted that along the curb strip there are existing roots that are a trip hazard. I should also mention that the diameter of this tree is still fairly small in comparison to a mature Sycamore of this same species, while I can appreciate the architects thoughts about having this nice canopy over the road and yard I am not sure they took into account the available growing space for this tree. We have a saying in Arboriculture that holds true that is “Right tree in the right place”, this is not the case in this situation. 2) What realistic long term and effective mitigation actions can be taken to stop the root travel and further damage of the residents plumbing, hard-scape, foundation and yard if keeping the existing Sycamore tree in place? In my 31 years practicing Arboriculture(24years as an ISA Certified Arborist) I have yet to find an effective mitigation action that will stop root travel and damage like this from occurring without either killing the tree or causing an unsafe condition that will lead to tree failure. 3) If not possible to correct further potential damage with the Sycamore would the Red Maple with a drought tolerant drip irrigation landscape be better suited when planted with root barriers? I believe the Red Maple would be a good choice as a replacement tree in these curb strips however they do require ample water and would suffer if the area was converted to drought tolerant landscape, deep root watering tubes and root barrier will be needed as well. 4) If not the Red Maple, what other City approved deciduous tree with the similar characteristics to the Sycamore in both canopy height, width and trunk size as the Red Maple would you recommend? Given the growing space available the Red Maple would be your best option as a replacement tree 5.A.h Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) Let me know if you have any questions. Have a wonderful afternoon. Daniel Ray Business Development Executive ISA Certified Arborist, WE-3522A TCIA Certified TreeCare Safety Professional #47 BrightView Tree Care Services 4677 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA - 94553 C. 925-408-3641 F. 925 957 8833 daniel.ray@brightview.com www.brightview.com” 5.A.h Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: HOA Response to Appeal Letter (2959 : M 20-11 Eagle Ridge Drive Landsacping Appeal) 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 20, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Melissa Durkin, Planner II SUBJECT: Z 20-01, Amendment to Gilroy City Code Chapter 30, Article XXXI, Off-Street Parking Requirements, to add Bicycle Parking Standards RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance and send the matter back to staff to allow adequate time to conduct stakeholder outreach, allow legal review, and make appropriate language refinements and adjustments. BACKGROUND: The City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) crafted a proposed bicycle parking ordinance, which they considered and recommended approval of at their January 20, 2020 meeting (see attachment 1). The primary goals of this ordinance are:  Establish minimum short-term and long-term bicycle parking stall requirements for all land uses except single-family residences and duplexes; and  Establish bicycle parking stall dimensions, standards, locational requirements and installation requirements  Allows bicycle parking to substitute for some required vehicle parking  Provides for a public bike fund that would allow developers to pay a fee in lieu of providing bicycle parking on site After consideration of this ordinance, the BPC forwarded their recommendation to planning staff, so the ordinance could be presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Review and approval of Z 20-02 qualifies for an exemption from environmental review under section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA 5.B Packet Pg. 79 2 applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” ANALYSIS: General Plan Consistency: The proposed text amendment conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Key goals and policies are discussed below: POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS 12.02 System Function and Neighborhood Protection. Ensure that existing and proposed bikeways serve the functions they are intended to serve, while protecting the character of residential neighborhoods The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it promotes bikeway usage by providing for secure bicycle storage. 12.08 Standard Level of Service (LOS). Maintain traffic conditions at LOS C or better at Gilroy intersections and roadways. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it promotes bicycle usage, thereby reducing traffic and helping the city stay within its LOS standard. 12.09 LOS and Air Quality. Maintain the City’s Standard Level of Service whenever feasible to minimize traffic congestion and thereby minimize exposure to carbon monoxide. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it promotes bicycle usage, which reduces vehicle emissions. 12.10 Land Use and Congestion. Promote land use planning that helps to reduce auto- mobile trips, thereby reducing congestion and helping to achieve air quality goals. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it promotes bicycle usage, which reduces vehicle congestion and vehicle emissions. 12.11 On-site Parking. Ensure adequate on-site parking in new developments to meet the needs of residents, employees, and patrons. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it provides for adequate bicycle parking in all land use classifications for all users. 14.01 Non-Auto Modes of Travel. Emphasize non-auto travel modes of transportation as a The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it promotes bicycle usage, 5.B Packet Pg. 80 3 key strategy for achieving air quality goals. which reduces vehicle emissions. 14.03 Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths and Facilities. Correct deficiencies, expand existing facilities, and provide for the design of safer, convenient and attractive bicycle and pedestrian facilities whenever possible. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would be consistent with this policy because it provides for bicycle parking facilities in adequate numbers to make bike riding attractive. City Attorney and Staff Recommendations The City Attorney and staff have review the BPC’s proposed ordinance, and provide the following comments: 1. The BPC proposes including language that would allow bicycle parking to substitute up to twenty-five percent (25%) of required vehicle parking. This section further allows that: a. for every additional five (5) non-required bicycle parking spaces provided that meet the short or long-term bicycle parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement would be reduced by one (1) space; and b. existing vehicle parking stalls may be converted to bicycle parking stalls take advantage of this provision. Staff Analysis: Encouraging bicycle riding instead of vehicle driving is consistent with many of the City’s General Plan goals. However, staff believes that a 25% reduction in vehicle parking stalls would be too aggressive at this time, particularly for regional-serving commercial uses and multi-family residential uses. Further, any reduction in vehicle spaces should be based on a parking study that corroborates the effect of the reduction, rather than on speculation. If the Planning Commission would like to include this language, we suggest adjusting the language to allow bicycle parking stalls to substitute required vehicle parking only if a parking study confirms that adding bicycle parking will provide a corresponding reduction in the need for vehicle parking. 2. The BPC Ordinance includes an incentives section that allows the Community Development Director to implement incentives to increase bicycle amenities. Staff Analysis: The City Attorney has advised that this section is too vague. It may be appropriate to allow incentives, but the wording will need to have specific parameters appropriate for an ordinance. 3. The BPC recommends allowing developers to pay specified fees into a public bike fund, instead of providing short-term bicycle parking on site, if there is no room for all of the short-term parking. Staff Analysis: Establishing a bike fund would require setting up an in lieu fee, which requires study and Council action. The BPC proposes to administer the 5.B Packet Pg. 81 4 fund, subject to adjustment by the City Engineer. The City Attorney has reviewed the BPC’s proposed ordinance and has advised staff that the BPC cannot administer a fee, and that fees should be set by Council resolutions. An y such fee would have to be used for specified purposes in coordination with some kind of program (like a Capital Improvement Program). For these reasons, this section would need to be eliminated from the ordinance. 4. The BPC ordinance includes a table for the provision of showers for large developments. Staff Analysis: Providing showers for bicycle riders is part of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy. The City’s Public Works Department is working on a TDM policy, and will include measures for showers either as part of that policy or as part of the City’s CEQA standard mitigation measures. This section would need to be eliminated from the proposed ordinance. 5. The BPC ordinance includes various design requirements and detailed standards. Staff Analysis: There are some conflicts between the BPC’s proposed design requirements and standards. Further, the City Attorney has determined that the level of detail contained in the “Detailed Standards” section is not appropriate in an ordinance. The City can develop guidelines through a public process later if desired. Based on this analysis, staff has determined that this ordinance requires additional refinements and language changes before the Planning Commission can act on it. Comparison to Other Cities Attachment three compares Gilroy’s proposed parking standards to standards adopted by select California cities. Staff selected a few cities in Santa Clara County and a few cities with somewhat aggressive bicycle parking policies to show how the proposed ordinance compares. Overall, Gilroy’s proposed ordinance is generally more aggressive than the other cities surveyed, particularly with regard to multi-family housing. Gilroy’s proposed ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom for affordable multi-family units and student housing. According to the BPC chair, the reason Gilroy’s ordinance takes a stronger stand on requiring bicycle parking is that Gilroy has a larger low -income population than the rest of Santa Clara County. Low-income households may have lower rates of vehicle ownership, and rely more-heavily on bicycles for travel. In addition, Gilroy has minimal public transit opportunities, so providing safe and secure bicycle parking will provide residents, low-income and otherwise, with a viable transportation method that does not rely on public transportation. There are many ways to provide dense bicycle storage, including bicycle parking lifts, that developers can employ to ensure they meet bicycle parking requirements. 5.B Packet Pg. 82 5 Developer Outreach The bicycle parking ordinance has the potential to significantly impact land use development projects. The BPC review did not include formal outreach to the development community. Staff recommends that this step should be taken prior to planning commission consideration of this ordinance. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Engineering, Building, Police, and Fire representatives considered this proposed text amendment on August 6, 2020. Recommendations of the TAC members have been incorporated into the proposed text amendment. Noticing: Notice of this Planning Commission meeting was published in the August 7, 2020 edition of the Gilroy Dispatch. In addition, the Planning Commission public hearing packet is available through the City's webpage. Appeal Procedure: The Planning Commission's action is not final, but rather a recommendation. As such, the matter will be considered by the City Council at a later date. Staff supports a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission. Next Steps: Staff recommends sending this ordinance back to staff so that we may conduct stakeholder outreach meetings, make adjustments to the ordinance, and allow sufficient time for legal review. Attachments: 1. BPC Proposed Ordinance 2. Comparison to Other Cities 5.B Packet Pg. 83 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY TO ADD TO THE GILROY CITY CODE CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE LV, ESTABLISHING BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy (“City”) is a nationally recognized League of American Bicyclists; Bicycle Friendly Community for bicycle planning and use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution article XI, section 7, and the City Charter, section 600, the City Council has the authority to enact ordinances which promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to improving bicycle infrastructure and facilities within the City for residents, students, employees and visitors and increasing the bicycle mode share as described in the City’s General Plan and Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the availability of sufficient and appropriate bicycle parking is a critical part of the City’s strategy to increase bicycle use and meet the goals of its Complete Streets Resolution and Safe Routes to School Resolution; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Bicycle Parking Ordinance for the City is to establish consistent standards for bicycle parking in the city and the need to provide predictability for new developments; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Parking Ordinance provides for secure bicycle parking for customers, employees, visitors, and City residents; and WHEREAS, the standards in the Bicycle Parking Ordinance would supersede and replace bicycle parking guidelines in the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan from Feb 2002; and WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission reviewed the Ordinance on TBD ??, 2020 and recommended that the City Council adopt the Bicycle Parking Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on TBD ??, 2020 and recommended that the City Council adopt the Bicycle Parking Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy held a public hearing on TBD ??, 2020 to consider adoption of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the subject Gilroy City Code amendments are covered under Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing significant effects on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no 5.B.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I Article LV, “Bicycle Parking Standards” is hereby added to the Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, and read as follows: ARTICLE LV. Bicycle Parking Standards. 30.55.10 Statement of Intent This article establishes definitions and standards for bicycle parking throughout the City of Gilroy. Free secured front row and long-term parking provides an important incentive that rewards the effort of biking. We actively advance projects and enhancements that promote mobility as well as the concept of free-range people in the City of Gilroy. We advocate for building and planning that considers future generations as well as current residents who don’t own cars. Advancing mobility options reflects what we are teaching the youth in our community through Safe Routes to School and why we are nationally recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community from the League of American Bicyclists, as well as recognized by the World Health Organization as an Age-Friendly Community. Strong bike parking standards provide positive economic benefits through keeping our residents local, reducing our carbon footprint, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and by feeding into a healthy California. 30.55.20 Applicability 1) The provisions of this article shall apply to: a) All new multiple dwelling developments, non-residential developments, community facilities and commercial uses set forth in the provisions of this article requiring planning approval or a building permit. b) Existing developments that involve a change in use (e.g. from retail to quick serve restaurant, or residential to office) requiring planning approval or a building permit. c) Existing developments that involve expansion, intensification, addition or any other changes to the site requiring planning approval or a building permit. 2) The provisions of this article do not apply to: a) Single-family residences and duplexes. 30.55.30 Definitions The terms in this article have the meanings set forth below: Alternative Compliance: The determination that the prescribed bicycle parking standard per land use type is not warranted for a particular project because of the use or location and that 5.B.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? an adjustment to the standard for the project is necessary, based on the considerations established for alternative compliance. Bicycle Parking Space: The volume of space that is used to accommodate the storage of one locked bicycle. Bicycle parking spaces are to be designed and spaced in a way that accommodates for typical two-wheel bicycles and alternative bicycles. Alternative Bicycle: Non-traditional bicycles with larger parking space requirements, including but not limited to, cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, recumbent bikes, etc. Short Term Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking spaces intended to be used for periods of time that are two hours or less and are targeted to visitors, customers and other short-term users. Short term bicycle parking racks shall provide two points of contact for a bicycle, allow for locking of the frame to the rack, and be securely anchored to the ground or wall. Short term bicycle parking shall be in a visible location, as near as possible to entrances. Short-term bicycle parking encourages shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to use bicycles by providing a convenient and readily accessible place to park bicycles. Short-term bicycle parking should serve the main entrance of a building and should be visible to pedestrians and bicyclists. Required short-term bicycle parking must meet the following standards: 1) Uniform Storage Requirements- Short-term bicycle parking must be provided in lockers or racks that meet the standards of Subsection 30.55.50. 2) Location- Short-term bicycle parking must be: a) Outside a building; b) At the same grade as the sidewalk or at a location that can be reached by an accessible route; and c) Within the following distances of the main entrance: 3) Building with one main entrance- For a building with one main entrance, the bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of the main entrance to the building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. See Figure 266-8; 4) Building with more than one main entrance- For a building with more than one main entrance, the bicycle parking must be along all facades with a main entrance, and within 50 feet of at least one main entrance on each facade that has a main entrance, as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. See Figure 266-9; 5) Sites with more than one primary building- For sites that have more than one primary building, but are not an institutional campus, the bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of a main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route, and must be distributed to serve all primary buildings. See Figure 266-10; 6) Institutional Campus- On an institutional campus with more than one building or main entrance, the bicycle parking must be either: Within 50 feet of a main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route; or if the 5.B.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? short-term bicycle parking is more than 50 feet from a main entrance, it must be in a common bicycle parking location along a pedestrian access route. Long Term Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking spaces intended to be used for periods of time that are longer than two hours and are targeted to residents, employees and other long-term users. Long term bicycle parking typically offers increased levels of security in lit, covered, and permanently anchored locations, which are proximate to employee or resident locations/entrances. Long term bicycle parking may be accompanied or used in conjunction with storage lockers, locked rooms or enclosures, and parking areas internal to the building. Long-term bicycle parking provides employees, students, residents, commuters and others who generally stay at a site for several hours, a secure and weather-protected place to park bicycles. Although long-term parking does not have to be provided on-site, the intent of these standards is to allow bicycle parking to be within a reasonable distance in order to encourage bicycle use. Required long-term bicycle parking must meet the following standards: 1) Uniform Storage Requirements- Long-term bicycle parking must be provided in racks or lockers that meet the standards of Subsection 30.55.50; 2) Location- Long-term bicycle parking must be located on the site or in an area where the closest point is within 300 feet of the site; 3) Covered Spaces- At least 50 percent of required long-term bicycle parking must be covered and meet the standards of Paragraph 30.55.50, Covered Bicycle Parking; and 4) Security- To provide security, long-term bicycle parking must be in at least one of the following locations: a) In a locked room; b) In an area that is enclosed by a fence with a locked gate. The fence must be either 8 feet high, or be floor-to-ceiling; c) Within view of an attendant or security guard; d) Within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard; e) In an area that is monitored by a security camera; or f) In an area that is visible from employee work areas. 30.55.40 Bicycle parking standards 1) This article establishes bicycle parking standards as follows in Table 1, except as further noted: Table 1 Residential (Multi-Family) General Residential (Multi-Family) For Students/Low- Income/Any Percentage of Affordable 1 Long-Term per 1 Unit + 1 Short-Term per 15 Units 1 Long-Term per Bedroom + 1 Short-term per 10 Units 5.B.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? Schools • Elementary, Middle & High Schools • Colleges - Student residences • Academic buildings and other university facilities 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1 spot per 12 students (50% Long-Term and 50% Short-Term) 1 Long-Term per 4.5 beds + 1 Long-Term per 30 employees 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1 spot per 9 student seats (25% Long-Term and 75% Short-Term) Park-and-Ride Lots/Parking Garages 7% of auto parking (75% Long-Term & 25% Short- Term) Cultural/Recreational (Includes libraries, theatres, museums, & religious institutions) 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + (1 Short-Term 1,500 sq. ft. or Short-Term per 60 seats (whichever is greater) Parks/Recreational Fields 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1Short-Term per 9 users During peak daylight times of peak season Retail Sales/Shopping Center/Financial Institutions/Supermarkets 1 Long-Term per 5,000 sq. ft. + 1 Short-Term per 2,500 sq. ft. Office Buildings/Offices 1 Long-Term per 5,000 sq. ft. + 1 Short-Term per 10,000 sq. ft. Hospitals 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1 Short-Term per 45 beds Restaurants 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1 Short-Term per 3,000 sq. ft. Industrial 1 Long-Term per 30 employees or 1 Long-Term per 15,000 sq. ft Day Care Facilities 1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1 short term per 30 children Auto-Oriented Services 1 Long-Term per 30 employees Other Uses Same as most similar use listed *Historic Downtown Core Area Includes all non-residential land use types in downtown. Apply same standards for land use above when feasible. City provides an on-going bicycle rack program for the Historic Downtown Core Area. Hotels/Motels/Bed-&-Breakfasts 1 Long-Term per 30 rooms + 1 Long-Term per 8 employees + Short-Term is 5% of required vehicle parking 2) *Historic Downtown Core Area – All Non-Residential Uses. The City employs an on-going bicycle parking program within the public right-of-way for the Historic Downtown Core Area. Businesses and developments within the Downtown Core Area are not required to provide bicycle parking if adequate on- site space is not available, as determined by the Community Development Director. Downtown multi-family developments shall comply with the requirements of this article. 3) Minimum requirements- All non-residential uses shall provide a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces per site. In the case of multi-tenant buildings minimum required bicycle parking shall be two spaces per tenant. Alternative compliance may supersede this requirement. At least one long-term bike parking space shall be provided for oversized bicycles per every twenty 5.B.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 6 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? long-term bike parking spaces. At least one long-term bike parking space shall be provided with an e-bike charging station per every twenty long-term bike parking spaces. 4) Alternative compliance, as established in Section 30.55.80, may be applied to all land use classifications. 30.55.50 Detailed standards and installation guidelines All accessory bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the same parcel as the building or use to which such spaces are required. Short-term bicycle parking facilities that consist of permanently anchored bicycle racks shall be located in a convenient, highly visible and well lighted area within 50 feet of a building entrance and within view of pedestrian traffic. Long- term bicycle parking facilities for tenant and occupant use shall be conveniently accessible by pedestrians from the street and shall be at least as convenient and close to building entrances as the nearest non-disabled automobile parking space. Further detailed standards and findings- such as acceptable dimensions are provided in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals' "Bicycle Parking Guidelines" and the City of Gilroy “Bicycle Parking Guidelines Worksheet”, which is maintained by the Public Works Department and Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Gilroy BPAC). 1) Purpose- These standards ensure that required bicycle parking is designed so that bicycles may be securely locked without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. 2) Bicycle lockers- Where required bicycle parking is provided in lockers, the lockers must be securely anchored. 3) Bicycle racks- The Public Works Department maintains the “Bicycle Parking Guidelines Worksheet” of racks and siting guidelines that meet the standards of this paragraph. Required bicycle parking may be provided in floor, wall, or ceiling racks. Inverted “U” style racks are preferred. Rolling/wave racks are not permitted. Where required bicycle parking is provided in racks, the racks must meet the following standards: a) The bicycle frame and one wheel can be locked to the rack with a high security, U-shaped shackle lock if both wheels are left on the bicycle; b) A space 2 feet by 6 feet must be provided for each required bicycle parking space, so that a bicycle six feet long can be securely held with its frame supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall in a manner that will damage the wheels or components. c) The rack must be securely anchored. 4) Parking and maneuvering areas- a) Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle b) There must be an aisle at least 5 feet wide behind all required bicycle parking to allow room for bicycle maneuvering. Where the bicycle parking is adjacent to a sidewalk, the maneuvering area may extend into the right-of-way; and 5.B.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? c) The area devoted to bicycle parking must be hard surfaced. d) Covered bicycle parking. Covered bicycle parking, as required by this section, can be provided inside buildings, under roof overhangs or awnings, in bicycle lockers, or within or under other structures. Where required covered bicycle parking is not within a building or locker, the cover must be: a) Permanent; b) Designed to protect the bicycle from rainfall; and c) At least 7 feet above the floor or ground. e) Signs- a) Light rail stations and transit centers. If required bicycle parking is not visible from the light rail station or transit center, a sign must be posted at the station or center indicating the location of the parking. b) Other uses. For uses other than light rail stations and transit centers, if required bicycle parking is not visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign must be posted at the main building entrance indicating the location of the parking. f) Use of required parking spaces- a) Required short-term bicycle parking spaces must be available for shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to the site. b) Required long-term bicycle parking spaces must be available for employees, students, residents, commuters, and others who stay at the site for several hours. 30.55.60 Calculation of required spaces 1) When a tract of land is developed with a mixed use building or development such as residential/commercial, residential/office, or retail/office, but is developed under single ownership or control, the required bicycle parking will be determined by calculating the required parking for each individual land use and then adding the individual requirements together to create a total bicycle parking requirement. 2) When the required number of spaces is based on net building area, the net building area of any accessory use is included with the primary use in the calculation. (e.g. manufacturing site with accessory office space). 3) After the bicycle parking requirement has been calculated, if the requirement results in a fraction of a space to be provided, the parking space requirement shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 8 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? 30.55.70 Incentives Should a business or institution be interested in going above and beyond the bicycle parking requirements and amenities as specified in this article, certain measures can be taken. The Community Development Director or her/his designee reserves the right to implement certain incentives to help assist the implementation of increased bicycle amenities, such as, locker rooms, showers, or indoor secure bicycle parking. Potential incentives may include offsetting the required number of vehicle parking spaces (2 spaces maximum or five percent (5%) of required vehicle parking), or other design requirements to accommodate space for secure bicycle parking, and other bicycle commuter amenities. 1) Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required parking. For every 5 non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long-term bicycle parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. 30.55.80 Alternative Compliance Public Bike Fund (Bicycle Parking Fund Option) 1) This option may be used only if it is not possible to provide all of the required short-term bicycle parking on site in a way that complies with all of the standards in 30.55.40 Bicycle parking standards. This option may NOT be used if: a) There are surface parking areas, plazas, exterior courtyards, or other open areas on the site, other than required landscaping; b) Those open areas are large enough, separately or in combination, to accommodate all required short-term bicycle parking; and c) The open areas meet the locational requirements of 30.55.40 Bicycle parking standards 2) Fund use and administration- The Public Bike Fund is collected and administered by the Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s 801 Fund. The funds collected will be used to install bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way, and will be marked reserved for bike parking on the balance sheet. The City Engineer will adjust the fee schedule annually using the California Composite Construction Cost Index in Table 2. 3) This option may not be used if any required short-term bicycle parking is provided on site. “All or Nothing” A developer has the choice of placing ALL required short-term bicycle parking on site OR using the Bicycle Parking Fund option and paying the fees for the total amount of short-term bicycle parking required on site. The developer cannot “mix and match,” placing some required short- term bicycle parking on site and paying into the fund for some of it. The intent is to make it easier to track the properties that have used the option and paid into the fund. Also, it prevents a developer from avoiding paying higher fees by placing some of the bike parking on site and “buying out” of the higher-priced bicycle parking. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) 9 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-?? An exception to “all or nothing” exists for the expansion of development and change or tenant where additional short-term bicycle parking is required and some already exists on site and meets the current regulations. Two spaces are generally the minimum number required for short-term bicycle parking. Placing a single rack (that accommodates two bicycles) in the right- of-way is relatively easy and inexpensive. The fees for one or two spaces are also kept low to minimize the impact on small businesses. Table 2 Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required Total Cost Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required Total Cost 1 $134 12 $16,990 2 $268 13 $17,994 3 $1270 14 $18,997 4 $2,274 15 $20,001 5 $3,278 16 $21,004 6 $4,281 17 $22,008 7 $5,285 18 $23,012 8 $6,288 19 $24,014 9 $7,292 20 $25,018 10 $14,983 21 $28,020 11 $15,987 22 or more spaces $26,757 30.55.90 Required Shower, Locker, & Dressing Facilities All new buildings and additions to existing buildings that result in a total floor area as shown in the following table shall be required to provide employee showers and dressing areas for each gender as shown in the following Table 3. Land uses required by this section shall also provide dressing rooms for each gender and one locker for each required long-term bicycle parking space. Required lockers shall be located in relation to required showers and dressing areas to permit access to locker areas by either gender. Table 3 Type of Land Use 1 Shower for Each Gender 1 Additional Shower for Each Gender Office Uses (Business, Professional) 50,000 to 149,999 sqft Each 100,000 sqft or portion thereof over 150,000 sqft Retail Trade, Services Uses 50,000 to 299,999 sqft Each 200,000 sqft or portion thereof over 300,000 sqft Manufacturing and Industrial Uses 50,000 to 299,999 sqft Each 200,000 sqft or portion thereof over 300,000 sqft 5.B.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: BPC Proposed Ordinance (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose Applicability  All new non-sfr/duplex structures/uses  Change in use  Any change that requires planning approval or bldg. permit  All multi-family projects and nonresidential use  All new non-sfr/duplex structures/uses  Change in use  Any change that requires planning approval or bldg. permit  All multi-family developments of five units or more  Commercial uses and commercial parking lots of ten spaces or more  New development projects, additions to existing buildings, and new living units in existing buildings.  New construction, re- construction or transfer of use to new parcel.  Buildings with multiple uses shall provide parking base on all uses.  Determination by Zoning Administrator. For uses not listed in the schedules of parking requirements  Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in compliance with this section and the Bicycle Parking Guidelines provided by the community development department.  Any building requiring a building permit  Every development that creates more than five thousand square feet of outdoor uses for which a development permit application was submitted Residential  Residential (Multi-Family) General-1 Long-Term per 1 Unit + 1 Short-Term per 15 Units  Residential (Multi-Family) For Students/Low- Income/Any Percentage of Affordable-1 Long- Term per Bedroom + 1 Short-term per 10 Units  Residential-1 space per 4 units if units do not have a private garage or private storage space for bike storage.  Residential - multifamily- 1 per bedroom short term 25% long term 75%  Residential- Short-Term Spaces- 10% of required automobile spaces; minimum of 4 spaces. Long Term- 1 per 5 units  Studio-short term- 0.05 per unit. Long term- 1.0 per unit  1-bedroom short term- 0.05 per unit- long term- 1.0 per unit  2-bedroom-short term- 0.10 per unit. Long term- 1.25 per unit  3 or more bedroom (or any dwelling unit over 1,400 square feet in floor area)- short term-0.15 per unit. Long term- 1.5 per unit  Multi-family dwellings- 1 space per unit – guest 1 space per 10 units  Multiple Dwelling, 1 bdr, 2 bdr, 3 bdr, ea additional bedroom- 1 per every 4 living units. 60% long term, 40% short term. Restaurant  Restaurants-1 Long-Term per 30 employees + 1 Short-Term per 3,000 sq. ft  Restaurants, café, coffee shop table and counter-1 space per 4,000 sf  Restaurant -quick serve- 1 per 150 sf short term 75% , long term 25%  Restaurant sit down- 1 per 500 sf short term 75%- long term 25%  Non-residential uses- Short term- 10% of required automobile spaces, long term- 1 per 20 required automobile spaces for uses 10,000 sq. ft. or greater  Fast food, drive-in, drive- thru, and take-out restaurants, Restaurants, taverns, lounges, and other establishments for on-site food consumption and beverages Short term- 1 per 10,000 s.f., long term- 1 per 20,000  Fast food (counter service) -5 percent of vehicle spaces  Public eating establishments-1 per 50 seats or 1 per 800 sq. ft. of dining area, whichever requires the greater number of parking spaces Retail  Retail Sales/Shopping Center/Financial Institutions/Supermarkets- 1 Long-Term per 5,000 sq. ft. + 1 Short-Term per  All retail trade uses-1 space per 5,000 sf.  Retail, general commercial-1 per 1000 sf. Short term- 75%, long term 25%  Non-residential uses- Short term- 10% of required automobile spaces, long term- 1 per 20 required automobile  Community Shopping Center, short term 1 per 5,000 s.f., long term 1 per 12,000 s.f.  Regional Shopping  Retail Stores 5 percent of vehicle spaces  Retail sales, goods and merchandise-1 per 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area 5.B.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose 2,500 sq. ft. spaces for uses 10,000 sq. ft. or greater Center, short term 1 per 10,000 sf. Long term 1 per 20,000 sf. Office  Office Buildings/Offices-1 Long-Term per 5,000 sq. ft. + 1 Short-Term per 10,000 sq. ft.  All business, financial, and professional service uses, except those listed below-1 space per 5,000 sf. Professional, medical, dental ,government, clinic, bank -1 per 1,500 sf short term-75%, long term- 25%  Non-residential uses- Short term- 10% of required automobile spaces, long term- 1 per 20 required automobile spaces for uses 10,000 sq. ft. or greater  Offices- short term 1 per 20,000 sf., long term 1 per 10,000 sf  Offices, administrative, corporate, research and development- 5 percent of vehicle spaces  Offices, general business, Offices, research and development, Financial institution-1 per 4,000 sq. ft. of floor area Industrial  Industrial-1 Long-Term per 30 employees or 1 Long-Term per15,000 sq. ft  Industrial Less than 50,000 sf.- 1 space per 7,000 sf. or as determined by CUP.  Industrial - Equal to or greater than 50,000 sf.- 1 space per 14,000 sf. or as determined by CUP.  Light Industrial-1 per 2,000 sf, short term 75%, long term 25%  Industrial-1 per 7,500 sf, short term 75%, long term 25%  Non-residential uses- Short term- 10% of required automobile spaces, long term- 1 per 20 required automobile spaces for uses 10,000 sq. ft. or greater  Wholesale establishments, warehouses, storage buildings, or structures, short term 1 per 5,000 s.f. long term 1 per 20,000 s.f.  Warehousing and data centers- 5 percent of vehicle spaces  Warehouse, Stockyard, including slaughter, Mini warehouse/ministorage-1 per 10 full-time employees Minimum requirements  All non-residential uses shall provide a minimum of 2 spaces  Multi-tenant- 2 spaces per tenant  A minimum of two short- term bicycle parking spaces and one long- term bicycle parking space shall be provided for new nonresidential development.  All non-residential uses shall provide a minimum of 2 spaces per site.  Multi-tenant buildings shall be two spaces per tenant.  Alternative compliance may supersede this requirement.  All parking shall be dedicated for the exclusive use of bicycles.  Short-term spaces shall permit the locking of the frame and 1 wheel with a U-type lock, support the bicycle in a stable position without damage.  Art racks are subject to review by the Zoning Administrator.  Long-term spaces shall permit the locking of the frame and 1 wheel with a U-type lock and support the bicycle in a stable position without damage.  Facilities shall be anchored so they cannot be removed and be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft. Long term parking 1) Uniform Storage Requirements- Long term bicycle parking 1) Long term bicycle parking protects the entire bicycle and its 1) Bicycle parking spaces intended to be used for periods of time that are 1) Long-term/class I bicycle parking provides employees, residents, 1) Each long-term bicycle parking space shall consist of a locker or a 1) Protects against theft of entire bicycle. The facility shall also protect 1) Secure bicycle storage facilities for tenants or occupants of a building 5.B.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose must be provided in racks or lockers 2) Location- Long-term bicycle parking must be located on the site or in an area where the closest point is within 300 feet of the site; 3) Covered Spaces- At least 50 percent of required long-term bicycle parking must be covered and meet the standards of Paragraph 30.55.50, Covered Bicycle Parking; and 4) Security- To provide security, long-term bicycle parking must be in at least one of the following locations:  In a locked room;  In an area that is enclosed by a fence with a locked gate. The fence must be either 8 feet high, or be floor-to- ceiling;  Within view of an attendant or security guard;  Within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard;  In an area that is monitored by a security camera; or  In an area that is visible from employee work areas. components from theft, vandalism, and inclement weather. 2) Bicycle lockers. A bicycle locker is a fully enclosed space for one bicycle, accessible only to the owner of the bicycle. A bicycle locker must be equipped with an internally mounted key-actuated or electronic locking mechanism, and not lockable with a user- provided lock. Groups of internal-lock bicycle lockers may share a common electronic access mechanism provided that each locker is accessible only to its assigned user. Bicycle lockers shall be constructed of molded plastic/fiberglass, solid metal or perforated metal. 3) A restricted-access bicycle enclosure is a covered or indoor locked area containing within it one bicycle rack space for each bicycle longer than two hours and are targeted to residents, employees and other long term users. 2) Long term bicycle parking typically offers increased levels of security in lit, covered, and permanently anchored locations, which are proximate to employee or resident locations/entrances. 3) Long term bicycle parking may be accompanied or used in conjunction with storage lockers, locked rooms or enclosures, and parking areas internal to the building. visitors and others who generally stay at a site for several hours a secure and weather- protected place to park bicycles. 2) Long-term parking may be located in garages or other limited access areas for exclusive use by tenants or residents. rack located within a locked enclosure, such as a secure room or controlled access area, providing protection for each bicycle from theft, vandalism and weather. 2) Long-term bicycle parking is meant to accommodate employees, students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park more than two (2) hours the bicycles from inclement weather. Three (3) design alternatives for Class I facilities are as follows:  A fully enclosed, weather-resistant space  Located within an interior locked room or locked enclosure.  An exterior enclosure for individual bicycles, where contents are visible from the sides but the top is covered. 2) Class I facilities other than lockers, restricted access rooms or enclosed cages, but providing the same level of security, may be approved by the zoning administrator. A written building management policy of permitting bicycles to be stored in private offices or multi- family dwellings (including apartments, townhomes and condominiums), or in designated areas within the structure where adequate security is provided, may be approved by the zoning administrator as an alternative to Class I facilities. or development that fully enclose and protect bicycles and may include:  A covered, access- controlled enclosure such as a fenced and gated area with short- term bicycle parking facilities.  An access-controlled room with short-term bicycle parking facilities; and  Individual bicycle lockers that securely enclose one bicycle per locker. Short Term Parking 1) Short-term bicycle parking must be: 2) Outside a building; 1) Short term bicycle parking is typically in the form of bicycle racks. 1) Bicycle parking spaces intended to be used for periods of time that are 1) Short-term/class II bicycle parking provides shoppers, 1) Short-term bicycle parking shall consist of a bicycle rack or racks and 1) A stationary object to which the user can lock the frame and both 1) Short-term bicycle parking facilities mean bicycle facilities 5.B.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose 3) At the same grade as the sidewalk or at a location that can be reached by an accessible route; and 4) Within the following distances of the main entrance: 5) Building with one main entrance- For a building with one main entrance, the bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of the main entrance to the building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. See Figure 266-8; 6) Building with more than one main entrance- For a building with more than one main entrance, the bicycle parking must be along all facades with a main entrance, and within 50 feet of at least one main entrance on each facade that has a main entrance, as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. See Figure 266-9; 7) Sites with more than one primary building- For sites that have more than one primary building, but are not an institutional campus, the bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of a main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route, and must be distributed to serve all primary buildings. See Figure 266-10; 2) Bicycle racks must meet the following criteria: a. Supports the bicycle upright by its frame in two places; b. Prevents the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over; c. Enables the bicycle frame and at least one wheel to be secured to the rack with a U-lock; d. Rack is constructed of materials that resist cutting by manual tools such as bolt cutters, hand saws, abrasive cutting cables and pipe cutters; e. Rack is securely anchored to the ground. two hours or less and are targeted to visitors, customers and other short term users. 2) Short term bicycle parking racks shall provide two points of contact for a bicycle, allow for locking of the frame to the rack, and be securely anchored to the ground or wall. Short term bicycle parking shall be in a visible location, as near as possible to entrances. customers, messengers and other visitors who generally park for two hours or less a convenient and readily accessible place to park bicycles. is meant to accommodate visitors, customers, messengers, and others expected to park not more than two (2) hours wheels. Should be protected from weather whenever possible. 2) Class II facilities are designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault and therefore the facility need not be within constant visual range. A Class II rack shall accept padlocks and high security, U-shaped locks. 3) Class III facilities are less secure and, therefore, shall be within constant visual range of persons within the adjacent structure or located in well-traveled pedestrian areas. accessible and usable by visitors, guests or business patrons and may include:  Permanently anchored bicycle racks;  Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles;  Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; and  Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. 5.B.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose 8) Institutional Campus- On an institutional campus with more than one building or main entrance, the bicycle parking must be either: Within 50 feet of a main entrance as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route; or if the Standards and installation 1) Purpose- These standards ensure that required bicycle parking is designed so that bicycles may be securely locked without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. 2) Bicycle lockers- Where required bicycle parking is provided in lockers, the lockers must be securely anchored. 3) Bicycle racks- The Public Works Department maintains the “Bicycle Parking Guidelines Worksheet” of racks and siting guidelines that meet the standards of this paragraph. Required bicycle parking may be provided in floor, wall, or ceiling racks. Inverted “U” style racks are preferred. Rolling/wave racks are 1) General guidelines.  All bicycle parking spaces provided shall be on a hard and stable surface.  All bicycle parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the surface so they cannot be easily removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft.  All bicycle parking facilities within vehicle parking areas shall be separated by a curb or other physical barrier to protect bicycles from damage by automobiles and other moving vehicles.  Short-term bicycle parking facilities are subject to and shall meet all the following requirements: o The facilities shall be located at least three feet away from any wall, fence, or other structure. 1) All accessory bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the same parcel as the building or use to which such spaces are required. Bicycle rack installation locations must be near or within visual site distance of building entrances. Further detailed standards and findings- such as acceptable dimensions are provided in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals' "Bicycle Parking Guidelines" and the City of Davis “Project Development Standards Guide”, which is maintained by the Department of Community Development and Sustainability. 1) Short-term bicycle parking shall be located within one hundred feet of the primary entrance of the structure or use it is intended to serve. 2) Location. Long-term bicycle parking shall be located on or within seven hundred fifty feet of the use that it is intended to serve. 3) Security. Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be secured. Spaces are considered secured if they are:  In a locked room or area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate;  Within view or within one hundred feet of an attendant or security guard  in an area that is monitored by a security camera; or  Visible from employee work areas. 1) A short-term bicycle parking space shall be at least (2.5) feet in width by (6) feet in length to allow space between bicycles. 2) Parking facilities shall not impede circulation. (i) Bicycle parking racks located on sidewalks should be kept clear of the pedestrian through zone. 3) Bicycle parking facilities are subject to the following standards: (i) Short-term bicycle racks shall be located with at least 30 inches clearance in all directions from any obstruction, including but not limited to other racks, walls, and landscaping. Large retail uses, supermarkets, and grocery stores are encouraged to locate racks with a 36-inch clearance in all directions from any vertical obstruction, including but not limited to other racks, walls, and landscaping. (ii) All bicycle facilities shall provide a minimum four (4) foot aisle to allow for 1) Class I(b), Class II and Class III facilities shall provide at least a twenty- four (24) inch clearance from the centerline of each adjacent bicycle, and at least eighteen (18) inches from walls or other obstructions;. 2) An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the facility. This aisle shall have a width of at least five (5) feet to the front or the rear of a standard six (6) foot bicycle parked in the facility; 3) Class I facilities at employment sites shall be located near the structure entrances used by employees; 4) Class II or Class III facilities intended for customers or visitors shall be located near the main structure used by the public; 5) Paving of bicycle parking areas is required; 6) Convenient access to 1) All bicycle parking spaces provided shall be on a hard and stable surface. 2) All bicycle parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the surface so they cannot be easily removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft. 3) All bicycle parking facilities shall support bicycles by at least two contact points on the bicycle to prevent the bicycle from falling over and to prevent damage to wheels, frame, or other components. 4) All bicycle parking facilities within vehicle parking areas shall be separated by a curb or other physical barrier to protect bicycles from damage by automobiles and other moving vehicles. 5) Short-term bicycle parking facilities are subject to and shall meet 5.B.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose not permitted. Where required bicycle parking is provided in racks, the racks must meet the following standards: a. The bicycle frame and one wheel can be locked to the rack with a high security, U-shaped shackle lock if both wheels are left on the bicycle; b. A space 2 feet by 6 feet must be provided for each required bicycle parking space, so that a bicycle six feet long can be securely held with its frame supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall in a manner that will damage the wheels or components. c. The rack must be securely anchored. 4) Parking and maneuvering areas- Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle. There must be an aisle at least 5 feet wide behind all required bicycle parking to allow room for bicycle maneuvering. Where the bicycle parking is adjacent to a sidewalk, the maneuvering area o When multiple short- term bicycle parking facilities are installed together in sequence, they shall be installed at least three feet apart and located in a configuration that provides space for parked bicycles to be aligned parallel to each other. o The facilities shall be installed in a clear space at least two feet in width by six feet in length to allow sufficient space between parked bicycles. o Permanently anchored bicycle racks shall be installed to allow the frame and one or both wheels of the bicycle to be securely locked to the rack. 2) Bicycle parking space location.  Short-term bicycle parking facilities that consist of permanently anchored bicycle racks shall be located in a convenient, highly visible and well lighted area within 50 feet of a building entrance and within view of pedestrian traffic.  Long-term bicycle parking facilities for tenant and occupant use shall be conveniently accessible by  Parking Space Dimensions. 4) Minimum dimensions of two feet by six feet shall be provided for each bicycle parking space. 5) An aisle of at least five feet shall be provided behind all bicycle parking to allow room for maneuvering. 6) 3.2 feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent walls, polls, landscaping, pedestrian paths, and other similar features. 7) Four feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent automobile parking spaces and drive aisles. 8) Rack Design. Bicycle racks must be capable of locking both the wheels and the frame of the bicycle and of supporting bicycles in an upright position. 9) Cover. Required cover for bicycle parking spaces shall be permanent, designed to protect the bicycle from rainfall, and at least seven feet above the floor or ground. unobstructed access to the designated bicycle parking area. (iii) All long-term bicycle parking facilities shall include a variety of rack types to accommodate different bicycle sizes, styles, and users, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 4) Bicycle parking facilities within auto parking facilities shall be protected from damage by cars by a physical barrier such as curbs, wheel stops, poles, bollards, or other similar features capable of preventing automobiles from entering the designated bicycle parking area. 5) Short-term bicycle parking facilities serving community activity centers such as libraries and community centers should incorporate weather-protective enclosures shielding the designated bicycle area from typical inclement weather when feasible. 6) Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in highly visible well-lighted areas. In order to maximize security, whenever possible short-term bicycle parking facilities shall be located in areas highly visible from the street and from the bicycle parking facilities shall be provided. Where access is via a sidewalk or pathway, curb ramps shall be installed where appropriate; 7) Lighting shall be provided in all bicycle parking areas. In both exterior and interior locations, lighting of not less than one (1) footcandle of illumination at ground level shall be provided; and. 8) The zoning administrator shall have the authority to review the design of all bicycle parking facilities required by this section with respect to safety, security and convenience. The zoning administrator shall consider the bicycle parking guidelines in determining the type, location and design of bicycle parking facilities. all the following requirements: 6) The facilities shall be located at least three feet away from any wall, fence, or other structure. 7) When multiple short-term bicycle parking facilities are installed together in sequence, they shall be installed at least three feet apart and located in a configuration that provides space for parked bicycles to be aligned parallel to each other. 8) The facilities shall be installed in a clear space at least two feet in width by six feet in length to allow sufficient space between parked bicycles. 9) Permanently anchored bicycle racks shall be installed to allow the frame and one or both wheels of the bicycle to be securely locked to the rack. 10) Short-term bicycle parking facilities that consist of permanently anchored bicycle racks shall be located in a convenient, highly visible and well lighted area within twenty feet of a building entrance and within view of pedestrian traffic. 11) Short-term bicycle parking facilities that consist of: covered, lockable enclosures with 5.B.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose may extend into the right-of-way; and The area devoted to bicycle parking must be hard surfaced.Covered bicycle parking. Covered bicycle parking, as required by this section, can be provided inside buildings, under roof overhangs or awnings, in bicycle lockers, or within or under other structures. Where required covered bicycle parking is not within a building or locker, the cover must be: (a)Permanent; (b)Designed to protect the bicycle from rainfall; and (c)At least 7 feet above the floor or ground. 5) Signs- Light rail stations and transit centers. If required bicycle parking is not visible from the light rail station or transit center, a sign must be posted at the station or center indicating the location of the parking. Other uses. For uses other than light rail stations and transit centers, if required bicycle parking is not visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign must be posted at the main building entrance pedestrians from the street and shall be at least as convenient and close to building entrances as the nearest non-disabled automobile parking space. interior of the building they serve (i.e., placed adjacent to windows). 7) The location and design of required bicycle parking shall be of a quality, character and color that harmonize with adjoining land uses. Required bicycle parking shall be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. 8) Long-term bicycle parking shall be covered and shall be located on site or within 200 feet of the main building entrance. The main building entrance is defined as publicly accessible entrances and shall exclude gated private garage entrances, trash room entrances, and other building entrances that are not publicly accessible. 9) Short-term bicycle parking must be along project frontage and within 50 feet of the main entrance to the building or commercial use or up to 100 feet where existing conditions do not allow placement within 50 feet. It should be in a well- trafficked location visible from the entrance. When the main entrance fronts the sidewalk, the installer must apply for an encroachment permit permanently anchored racks for bicycles; or lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers shall be located in a convenient, highly visible and well-lighted area within one hundred feet of a common publicly accessible building entrance and within view of pedestrian traffic 12) Long-term bicycle parking facilities for tenant and occupant use shall be conveniently accessible by pedestrians from the street and located within one hundred feet of building entrances accessible by tenants and occupants. 5.B.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose indicating the location of the parking. 6) Use of required parking spaces- Required short-term bicycle parking spaces must be available for shoppers, customers, messengers, and other visitors to the site. Required long-term bicycle parking spaces must be available for employees, students, residents, commuters, and others who stay at the site for several hours. from the City to install the bicycle parking in the public right-of-way. The main building entrance excludes garage entrances, trash room entrances, and other building entrances that are not publicly accessible. 10) If required bicycle parking is not visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign must be posted at the main building entrance indicating the location of the bicycle parking. Calculation of required spaces 1) When a tract of land is developed with a mixed use building or development such as residential/commercial, residential/office, or retail/office, but is developed under single ownership or control, the required bicycle parking will be determined by calculating the required parking for each individual land use and then adding the individual requirements together to create a total bicycle parking requirement. 2) When the required number of spaces is based on net building area, the net building area of any accessory use is included with the primary use in the 1) Each land use shall be provided the number of parking spaces required by Table 3-4, and in accordance with Section (Number of parking spaces required) except where a greater or lesser number of spaces is required through conditions of approval. When the bicycle parking required for a nonresidential land use is based on square footage, at least 25 percent of the spaces shall be provided in long-term bicycle parking facilities and at least 50 percent shall be provided in short-term bicycle parking facilities. 2) When part or all of the spaces required for a nonresidential land use is based on the number 1) When a tract of land is developed with a mixed use building or development such as residential/commercial, residential/office, or retail/office, but is developed under single ownership or control, the required bicycle parking will be determined by calculating the required parking for each individual land use and then adding the individual requirements together to create a total bicycle parking requirement. 2) When the required number of spaces is based on net building area, the net building area of any accessory use is included with the primary use in the calculation. (e.g. 1) If after calculating the number of req. spaces a fraction of one-half or more, an additional space shall be required 2) When the parking req. is based on number of employees or number of students, the number of spaces shall be based on the number of working persons on the lot during the largest shift of the peak season or the highest expected student capacity. If the Zoning Administrator determines that this number is difficult to verify for a specific facility, then the number of required long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be a minimum of two (2) spaces or five (5) percent of the amount of required automobile spaces for the proposed 1) The number of bicycle parking spaces required is determined by Section 36.32.50 (Required Parking Spaces); and 2) The zoning administrator may require that a certain percentage of the spaces be Class I, Class II or Class III depending on the potential users. The zoning administrator shall use the Bicycle Parking Guidelines in determining the appropriate proportions of each class. 5.B.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose calculation. (e.g. manufacturing site with accessory office space). 3) After the bicycle parking requirement has been calculated, if the requirement results in a fraction of a space to be provided, the parking space requirement shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. of employees, that portion shall be provided in long-term bicycle parking facilities. 3) Parking spaces for residential uses shall be provided as long-term bicycle parking facilities except that up to 15 percent may be provided as short-term facilities to accommodate visitors. manufacturing site with accessory office space). 3) After the bicycle parking requirement has been calculated, if the requirement results in a fraction of a space to be provided, the parking space requirement shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. facility, whichever is greater. 3) When the parking req. is based on number of seats, in the case of pews or similar facilities each 18 inches shall be counted as one seat. 4) The calculation of short- term parking may include existing racks that are in the public right-of-way and are within 100 feet of the main entrance. Incentives Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required parking. For every 5 non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long-term bicycle parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. Should an entity be go beyond the parking req. and amenities. Certain incentives to help assist the implementation of increased bicycle amenities, such as, locker rooms, showers, or indoor secure parking. Incentives may include offsetting the required number of vehicle parking spaces (2 spaces maximum or five percent (5%) of required vehicle parking), or other design requirements commuter amenities. Alternative compliance 1) This option may be used only if it is not possible to provide all of the required short-term bicycle parking on site in a way that complies with all of the standards in 30.55.40 Bicycle parking standards. This option may NOT be used if: a) There are surface parking areas, plazas, exterior courtyards, or 1) Upon written request the Director may approve alternative compliance from the provisions of this article, which may includea reduction or deviation in the number, type, or location of the required bicycle parking, and may include a waiver of the requirement. 2) Considerations used in the determination may 1) The director may reduce or eliminate the required short-term spaces on private property with a development permit where all of the following conditions are met: a. The project provides short-term parking in the public street within two hundred feet of a publicly accessible 5.B.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Gilroy Proposed Santa Rosa Davis Morgan Hill San Mateo Mountain View San Jose other open areas on the site, other than required landscaping; b) Those open areas are large enough, separately or in combination, to accommodate all required short-term bicycle parking; and c) The open areas meet the locational requirements of 2) Fund use and administration- The Public Bike Fund is collected and administered by the Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s 801 Fund. The funds collected will be used to install bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way, and will be marked reserved for bike parking on the balance sheet. The City Engineer will adjust the fee schedule annually using the California Composite Construction Cost Index in Table 2. 3) This option may not be used if any required short-term bicycle parking is provided on site (recommended by BPC). include, but are not limited to: a. Physical site planning constraints; b. Proximity to existing bicycle parking; c. Projects that cannot be classified into the provided land use categories; d. Provision of enhanced bicycle facilities provided in the development; e. Inclusion of the site within a larger development for which adequate bicycle parking is already provided; or f. Unforeseen circumstances or individual land use changes building entrance or site in conformance with an encroachment permit approved by the director of public works; and b. The Director of Planning determines that short-term parking provided in the public sidewalk or other area of the public street are convenient and accessible to visitors or patrons of the site. c. There is no right to use the public streets for required bicycle parking spaces and any permit s issued that allow for such facilities in the public streets may be revoked for any reason, in which case such facilities shall be provided on private property. 2) The director may reduce or eliminate required long-term spaces for multi-family uses with a development permit when the multi-family uses are located in buildings that have individual enclosed garages assigned to each dwelling unit. 5.B.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Comparison to Other Cities (2950 : Z 20-02, Bicycle Parking Standards Ordinance) Planning Current Project Log1City of Gilroy Planning DivisionDated:8/14/2020Legends:App Type:Historic Reivew:Planning Staff:Staff Directory LinkDevelopment (Dev) Type: CEQA:ASArchitectural and Site ReviewMMMinor ModificationHDHistoric Neighborhood Combinig DistrictCMCindy McCormickDRDiego RomeroCOM Commercial XExemptCUPConditional Use PermitTMTentative MapHS Historic SiteKTKraig TamborniniMCMiguel Contreras RES Residential IS/NDInitial Study / Negative DeclarationDUPDowntown Use PermitVMDVariance Minor DeviationHD/HS Both Historic Neighborhood Combining District and Historic SiteMAD Melissa DurkinSOSue Ostrander IND Industrial IS/MNDInitial Study / Mitigated Negative DeclarationGPAGeneral Plan AmendmentZZoning AmendmentJWJulie WyrickPA Phil Angelo POL Policy EIREnvironmental Impact ReportHPHabitat PermitJLJia LiuTWA Teri Wissler Adam, EMCMIX Mix of Uses ()MMiscellaneousSK Stan KetchumKJKyle Jordan INS InstitutionalADDRESS STREET (Or Location)STATUS APP TYPE FILE # (PROJECT #) PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLANNERAPPLICANT/CONTACTCONTACT PHONEGENERAL PLANZONEDATEFILED DATE APPROVEDHISTORIC DEV TYPE# Of BuildingsSIZE (SF)RES UNITS (#)BMR? (%)DOWNTOWNCEQA6970 Camino Arroyo A. Preliminary AS/TM/ZAS 20-13 (20070040), TM 20-04 (20080001), Z 20-05 (20080002)841-70-049New PUD with 2 4-story hotels (70,545 SF and 65,576 SF), 4,000 SF restaurant and 4,200 SF gas /convenience storeMC / KT Bob Desai 408-891-3503General IndustrialHC/M2-PUDNOT FORMALLY INTAKENCOM 4 144,3218000 Camino Arroyo A. Preliminary M M 20-12 (20070016)841-069-028, 841-069-039, 841-080-005Data Center CM Dan Westley (PE) 425-876-9680General IndustrialM27/20/2020IND 3 438,500 Eagle Ridge DriveA. Proposed M M 20-11 (20070002)Appeal of approved application MM 20-19 for new trees and shrubs along Eagle Ridge DrivePA Ray Ivicevich HillsideRH-PUD7/22/2020MISCX4509th Street; Tenth and ChestnutA. Proposed AS/TM/ZAS 20-14 (20070017), TM 20-03 (20070020), Z 20-04 (20070021)841-66-010, -011, -014, and -015.Ohlone Garlic Center KT Eric Triolo 408-842-2188General Services CommercialC3/CM7/20/2020COM 6 996498787 Monterey A. Proposed AS AS 20-11 (20060035) 790-27-036 Alpine Landscaping Remodel of Existing Site KT Laura Hennessee 408-621-4695General Services CommercialCM6/29/2020MIX (COM/IND)Remodel Only 177551520Hecker Pass Highway; Hecker Pass & Santa Teresa A. Proposed ASAS 20-10 (20060031) / Z 20-03 (20060030)810-66-012Affordable aparmtents at southwest corner of hecker pass and santa teresa.KT Jonathan Emami 408-728-3636Medium Density ResidentialR36/26/2020RES 6 100 100%8900 Murray A. Proposed AS/CUPAS 20-09 (20050041) / CUP 20-01 (20050042)835-04-069Expansion of existing self storage facility with addition of new two-story building.PA Judy Lee 949-829-3286General IndustrialM16/24/2020IND 1 30978Citywide A. Proposed Z Z 20-02 (20060030) Zoning ordinance text amendment for bicycle parking MAD / MC6/24/2020POL6805 Silacci Way A. Proposed AS AS 20-07 (20050016)New Office / Warehouse buildings. Reference M 20-01 for DRG pre-application file.MCJeffrey Krausse (Architect)991-327-1311General IndustrialM2 5/18/2020IND 2 422187495 Arroyo Circle A. Proposed AS AS 20-08 (20050026) 841-69-017 PG&E Cellular Co-location and access road. MC / PA Macy General IndustrialM25/14/2020INDCamino Arroyo A. Proposed M M 20-07 (20050015) 841-18-082 Camino Arroyo distribution facility DRG KT5/13/2020IND2202 Columbine A. Proposed AS AS 20-05 (20020025) 783-72-061new, 5,574 square foot home with a 720 square foot attached garage.DR Tomas Osinski 323-226-0576Residential Hillside2/18/2020RES395 Lewis Street A. Proposed AS/TMAS 20-02 (20010012) TM 20-01 (20010014) 4-lot subdivision (TM) with 4 new homes (AS) CMQui T Son (Applicant) Hung Quoc Nguyen (Owner)01/21/20 RES 4 4 X6585Eagle Ridge CourtA. Proposed AS AS 20-01 810-72-0260Constructe a new, 5 bed, 5.5 bath, 2 story, 4312 sq. ft. single family residence, with attached 3 car accessory garage.MCGary Moore 707-543-6381Residential HillsideRH 1/17/20 RES 14312 + garage17880 Monterey A. Proposed AS AS 19-27 (19120038)Demolition of Fosters and the construction of a new dentist office in the downtown expansion district.PADeepak Patankar / Architect(415) 312-0454 DED 12/31/19 COM 1 YX10 West 7th Street A. Proposed AS AS 19-24 (19110035) Remodel of an existing commercial building KT Steve Hernandez 11/27/19 COMGlen Loma Ranch Specific PlanA. Proposed M M 19-10 Traffic study MAD Glen Loma Group 09/24/19 POLIS/MNDTown Center BMR Apartments in Glen LomaA. Proposed M M 19-14 Affordable housing policy exception MADPacific West/Caleb Road09/03/19 POLXDescription: This log contains all the current planning division projects that city staff are working on. This includes new development proposals and staff projects such as general plan changes. Please reach out to the Planning Technician Phil Angelo atPhil.Angelo@cityofgilroy.org or call the Planning Division main line at (408) 846‐0440 if you have any questions regarding our current projects or the information presented in this log.G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Commission, Committee, Task Force\Planning Commission (PC)\3. PC Informational Items\Planning Current Project Log\2020\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_10PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_107.APacket Pg. 103Communication: August 10, 2020 Planning Division Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS) Planning Current Project Log2A. Proposed M M 18-29Sports Complex Phase 3SO city05/06/19 INSSEIR7888 Monterey A. Proposed AS AS 19-07 (1903038)Mixed use 3-story bld. 2 commercial "live/work" units + 10 residential units, ground level parking MCEfrain Coria, Applicant03/20/19MIX (RES/CO)9211 Mahogany Court A. Proposed AS AS 18-33 (#18110027) Single Family Hillside Home MCAndrew, CA2Homes- Architect(408)786-4233 11/19/18 RESXUPRR Right of WayA. Proposed M M 18-22(#18080054) High Speed Rail Gilroy Alignment study - Ongoing KT City 08/21/18 POLXCitywideA. Proposed M M 18-18 (#18080001)Special Events Permit/Temporary Use PermitMAD City08/02/18 POLXCitywideA. Proposed M M 18-13 (#18060036)Historical Resource InventoryJW City06/27/18 POLXAutomall Pkwy. A. Proposed AS/ZAS 18-09 (#18050017)Z 18-04 (18050018)80' Freeway electronic message pylon sign Gilroy Auto Mall CMArroyo Sign, c/o: Richard Luchini510-715-5488 05/04/18 MISCCitywideA. Proposed M M 18-02 (#18010039)Parklet policyJW City01/24/18 POLXNorth of Santa Teresa BlvdA. Proposed Z Z 17-02 (#17030053) Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan update MADTim Filice, Developer408-847-4224 09/04/16 POLA. Proposed M M 16-10 (#16090007)CEQA analysis of 10th Street bridge projectMAD City09/02/16 POLXW. Luchessa Ave and Miller Ave.A. Proposed AS AS 16-33 (#16080044) New Glen Loma Ranch Fire Station MAD City of Gilroy 08/25/16 INSXDowntown A. Proposed GPA/ZGPA 15-02 (#15120002), Z 15-12 (#15120004)High Speed Rail Station Area Plan - Reactivation of project KT City 12/02/15 POLXCitywideA. Proposed GPAGPA 13-02 (#13100001)2040 General Plan UpdateSKCity07/13/13 POLXVickery & Kern AvenuesA. Proposed USAUSA 14-02 (#14070058), USA 12-01 (#12070023)Urban Service Area amendment to incorporate of 55.66+/- acres into Gilroy’s Urban Service Area (USA)MADWren Investors, Developer408-779-3900 7/17/12MIX (POL/RES/COM)IS/MNDCitywide A. Proposed M 20-05 SB 330 Compliance CMCitywide A. Proposed M 20-06 CA HSR EIR Revision CM (KT)Citywide A. Proposed M 20-10 (20050033) LEAP Grant CMAutomall Pkwy. B. ApprovedM M 20-08(20050031) 841-16-117 Automall Pkwy. Shovel-Ready commerical DRG MC5/22/2020COMHollowayB. ApprovedM M 20-09 (20050032) 841-67-029 Holloway Rd, Shovel-Ready Industrial DRG MC5/22/2020IND7511 Monterey B. Approved AS AS 20-06 (20030015) 799-06-054 Façade modifications to vines and pints building DHD district. KT 799-06-054Downtown Specific PlanDHD3/15/2020HS COMX7533, 7530, 7539Monterey B. Approved AS AS 20-04 (20020013) 799-06-049Retro-fitting of historic URM building. Proposal for mixed-use building with (3) restaurants and (3) residential unitsCM Jose Montes 408-710-2703 02/07/20 HSMIX (RES/COM)130Y1505Welburn Avenue B. Approved AS AS 20-03 (20010033) 783-23-046 Second floor addition to existing residential hillside home CMJohn Krukar (Architect)800-332-6035 01/30/20 RES 1 ExistingCitywide B. Approved Z Z 20-01 (20010005)Zoning update to implement state changes to ADU laws adopted on 1/1/20.KT City of Gilroy 408-846-0440 1/10/20 POL95 Farrell Avenue B. Approved AS/TMAS 19-17 TM 19-01 (See Also Z 19-03)Subdividing single 43,592 SF lot into 4 single family lots. 3 will be 6,694 SF parcels and one will be a 15,710 flag parcel.KT M Huang 12/12/19 RES1475 Welburn Avenue B. Approved MM MM 19-38 New retaining wall in residential hillside home. PAPeter Tong - System Pavers12/12/19 02/10/20 RESX1870 Carob CourtB. ApprovedAS AS 19-26 (19120012)New 4,862 sq. ft. hillside residence with 1,349 sq. ft. lower level garage.MC Debra Mercado 12/11/19 RES7797 MontereyB. ApprovedAS AS 19-23 (19110032)Architectural remodel for a beer garden and brew house in a historic home.MC Larissa Dickerson 11/27/19 COM7797 MontereyB. ApprovedCUP CUP 19-01 (19110033)Conditional Use Permit for a beer garden and brew house in a historic home.MC Larissa Dickerson 11/27/19 COM8772 Foxglove CourtB. ApprovedASAS 19-22 Single-family hillside homeMC Debra Mercado10/16/19 RES7648 MontereyB. ApprovedASAS 19-21 Re-roofing and rollup door replacement at boxing gymMC Ruben Gurrero10/15/19 COM165 Martin StreetB. ApprovedASAS 19-20 Historic Restoration of Single Family HomeMCAlfred Y. Gaetos 408-262-8400x14310/04/19 HS RES7300 Monterey B. Approved AS AS 19-16 (19090002)TI to convert gas station to 40 seat coffee shop (indoor and outdoor seating area)MCAndrew Raymundo09/04/19 09/16/19 COMX9005 Mimosa CourtB. ApprovedAS AS 19-15Construct a new single story 3,145 square foot single-family house with a 709 square foot garage in an RH District.DR Darryl Smith 408-799-0558 08/05/19 RESFirst Street and Kern AvenueB. Approved AS/HPAS 19-12 (19050022)HP 17-02 (#17070020)4-story, 120-unit apartment on approximately148,456 in-fill multi-family property adjacent to C-3KT Jonathan Emami 05/15/19 RES8350Winter Green CourtB. ApprovedAS AS 19-11 (19040026) Single Family Hillside Home MC Loret Mussallem 04/19/19 RESX2281 Banyan CourtB. ApprovedASAS 19-09 (19040007)Single Family Hillside HomeMC Warren Geisert 04/02/19 09/03/19 RESX9025 Mimosa CourtB. ApprovedASAS 18-34 (#18110037)Single Family Hillside HomeMC Tony Rivellini(408)607-324811/21/18 11/06/19 RESXCitywideB. Approved M M 18-25 (#18090009)Land Management System (LMS) AcquisitionJW City 09/11/18 02/24/20 POLXSoutheast corner of Santa Teresa Blvd and 1st StB. Approved AS AS 18-20 (#18090005) Architectural modification for 202 townhome units JWWilliam J. McClintock, Engineer408-779-7381 09/06/18 10/29/18 RESXB. Approved M M 18-17 (#18070050)Cities Association RHNA Sub-RegionSKCity07/16/18 POLXNorth of Santa Teresa, east of Syrah Dr, and west of Miller Ave. B. Approved TM TM 18-02 (#18060015)TM for three neighborhoods in GLR: Nebbiolo – 103 SF lots; Malvasia – 46 compact SF lots; and The Glen – 23 SF lots MAD RJA: Chris Patton 408-848-0300 06/11/18 08/05/19 RESSW of Santa Teresa Blvd, S of the Ballybunion Dr/Santa Teresa Blvd B. Approved TM TM 13-03 (#13040049)TM 13-03 Time Extension for Kroeger Subdivision: Six SFR lots, three open space parcels, and a private street MAD RJA: Chris Patton 408-848-0300 01/25/18 RESX6503 Cameron Blvd &1001 Ventura Way6503 Cameron Blvd &1001 Ventura WayB. Approved AS AS 18-01 (#18010011)Two single-story warehouse buildings totaling 173,740 SF in McCarthy Ranch Industrial PUDKTMcCarthy Gilroy LLC, Developer 408-356-2300 01/09/18 INDX2282 GunneraB. ApprovedASAS 17-34 Single-Family Hillside Home - Expires 9/3/20MC D&Z Designs10/25/17 RESG:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Commission, Committee, Task Force\Planning Commission (PC)\3. PC Informational Items\Planning Current Project Log\2020\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_10PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_107.APacket Pg. 104Communication: August 10, 2020 Planning Division Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS) Planning Current Project Log32475 Hecker Pass B. Approved AS AS 17-02 (#17010029) Commercial and residential mixed use in HPSD MADHecker Pass Commercial, LLC, Developer408-836-9290 01/26/17MIX (RES/COM)IS/MNDGlen Loma Ranch Specific PlanB. Approved TM TM 16-01 59 SFR Lots (McCutchin and Palomino) MAD Glen Loma Group 12/21/16 RESThomas Lane B. Approved TM TM 16-02 (#16050031) TM for subdividing 14 single-family residential lots. KTR.J. Dyer Real Property Investment, Inc.408-847-1553 05/18/16 11/05/18 RES9426 Wetsand Court C. Plan Check AS AS 19-25 (19110036) Legalize partially constructed gazebo PACarlos & Esmeralda Martinez11/27/19 12/27/19 RESX770 1st Street C. Plan CheckMM MM 19-25Modify trash enclosure for AS18-19 approva KT C Filice09/20/19 COM303 E 10th Street C. Plan Check ASAS 19-14 (19060034)VMD 19-017,000 sf O'Reilly Auto Parts Store with reduced street sideyard setback along Chestnut Street.KTScott Kraus-Oreilly, M Conrotto-Owner06/28/19 COM5747 Obata Way C. Plan Check M MM 19-08 (#19060027)Extension of approval AS17-23 (expires 7/20/20) - New warhouse for steel construction companyKTPeter Larson06/24/19 07/17/19 INDX8200 Kern C. Plan Check MM/VMDMM 19-13 (19050039)VMD 19-02New fence and gate for apartment complex security (resubmitted 10/16/19)KTAvery Cypress Point LC06/07/19 RESX1975 Saffron Court C. Plan Check AS AS 19-06 (19030026) Single Family Hillside Home MCD&Z Design, Architect (Debra Mercado)03/13/19 RESX8341Winter Green CourtC. Plan Check AS AS 19-05 (190030013) Single Family Hillside Home MC Clayton Johnson 03/05/19RESX7851 Eigleberry Street C. Plan Check AS AS 19-04 (19030004) New second dwelling. Bldg Permit #19040112 applied 4/19/19 KT Adolfo Rodriguez 03/04/19 RESX6807 Automall Pkwy. C. Plan Check AS/HPAS 19-03 (#19030002)HP 19-01 (19030003)New car dealership building. Bldg Permit 19100090 Issued for Site WorkJWSKTerra Ventures LLC03/01/19 COM2291 Banyan Street C. Plan Check AS AS 18-29 (#18100050) Single Family Hillside Home. Permit 19030021 submitted. JWD&Z Design, Architect (Debra Mercado)408-778-7005 10/19/18 RESX8885 Forest Street C. Plan Check AS AS 18-27 (#18100043)New 11,796 Sq.Ft Industrial Building (Building Permit #19100106)KTJames Vergara, Applicant 408-640-429110/16/18 RESX7050 Monterey C. Plan Check AS/CUPAS 18-26 (18100023)CUP 18-05 (#18100024)Building and site improvements for Sumano's commercial bakeryMCBrain Spector, Applicant831-319-4045 ext. 2 10/09/18 COM8762 Foxglove Court C. Plan Check AS AS 18-22 (#18090026) Single-Family Hillside Home MCEfrain Coria, Owner408-804-0342 09/20/18 RESX8775 Wild Iris Drive C. Plan Check AS AS 18-21 (#18090018)Single-Family Hillside Home (Building Permit #19010165). Grading only issued 19100040KTTony Rivellini, Applicant 408-607-3248 09/14/18 RESX770 1st Street C. Plan Check AS AS 18-19 (#18080070) New 4,016 s.f. commercial building with drive-through KTJeffrey Eaton, Applicant 408-691-899808/27/18 COMXMayock Road C. Plan Check AS AS 18-18 (#18080051) 841-76-031 New 16,340 s.f industrial warehouse building MCLon Davis, Architect 408-778-2525 08/20/18 INDX1490Santa Teresa Blvd and First StC. Plan Check AS AS 13-35 & TM 13-11202 Unit Townhouse Development - Time Extension No 2 (CC Reso 2018-21)JWEagle Garden LLC06/18/18 04/04/16 RESXHecker Pass C. Plan Check ASAS 18-03 (#18010024), Z 18-01, TM 18-01783-04-02373 SFR lots, 7 common spaces, and public and private streets by establishing a new PUD overlayMADHecker Pass North, LLC, Developer 408-836-9290 01/16/18MIX (RES/INS)XSanta Teresa BlvdC. Plan Check AS AS 17-37 (#17120021) 158-unit apartment project at Glen Loma Ranch MADCaleb Roope, Applicant 530-906-6967 12/15/17 RES8565 Strawberry Lane C. Plan Check AS AS 17-35 (#17100050) Single-Family Hillside Home (Bldg Permit #19060072) KTCameron Waston, Developer 408-690-3037 10/25/17 RESX8755 Wild Iris Drive C. Plan Check AS AS 16-47 (#16100026) Single Family Hillside Home. P18030127 KTWalid Nazzal, ArchitectPhone: 408-772-609610/25/16 RESXNorth of Santa Teresa BlvdC. Plan Check ASAS 17-12 (#17030051)TM 17-01 (#17030052)Tentative Maps for GLR Town Center Multi-Family Area 125-unit townhomes at GLR Town Center Multi-Family AreaMADTim Filice, Developer408-847-4224 09/04/16 RES8745 Wild Iris Drive C. Plan CheckASAS 16-29 NSFR HillsideD&Z Designs08/09/16 RES6705 Silacci Way C. Plan Check AS AS 16-25 (#16060050)91,045 SF for contractor truck parking and equipment yard. Build Permit 19020025 applied 2/5/19KTVince Rivero, Architect 408-813-201006/28/16 INDX544 Stoney Court C. Plan Check MM MM 19-27, AS 16-09Repairs and accessibility upgrades. B Permit 19100015,16,17,18,19MC Maple Gardens 03/24/16 RES7231 Eagle RidgeC. Plan CheckASAS 14-38 NSFR Hillside (Bldg Permit 17050137)MC N Tuyen09/15/14 RES1853 Thyme Court D. Under Construction AS AS 19-19Detached garage and residential addition (ADU under separate permit)KTDaniel Silvernail Architect, Inc.831-462-913809/30/19 RES1500 Southwest D. Under Construction AS AS 19-18 New Maintenace Facility Upgrades - no expansion of use KT SCRWA 09/24/19 IND1905 Saffron Court D. Under Construction AS AS 19-13 (19060033)New swimming pool/ retaining walls in Residential Hillside. P19050179KT Steve Caspari, Jr 06/27/19 RES8797 Monterey D. Under Construction MM MM 19-17 Establish contractor yard on existing unoccupied site KT06/07/19 IND6455 Automall Pkwy. D. Under Construction AS AS 19-10 (#19040011)New 3,250 sq. ft. freestanding metal canopy. Building Permit #19080090KT/MC Joe Magana 04/05/19 COMX660 Birdsong Street D. Under Construction AS AS 18-35 (18120021) Addition of 963 sq.ft to existing SFR MCRichard/ Holly Hartman 408-995-049612/19/18 RESXG:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Commission, Committee, Task Force\Planning Commission (PC)\3. PC Informational Items\Planning Current Project Log\2020\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_10PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_107.APacket Pg. 105Communication: August 10, 2020 Planning Division Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS) Planning Current Project Log48950 Mimosa Court D. Under Construction AS AS 18-32 (#18110014) Single Family Hillside Home MCJason Guera, Symmetry Design Build, 408-813-876011/07/18 RESXMiller Ave. and Santa Teresa Blvd. D. Under Construction ASAS 18-25 (#18100020) and TM 16-03 (#16080041)Blanc and Noir (formerly the Grove) neighborhood in Glen LomaRanch: 113 single-famiy dwelling units MADTriPointe Homes, Scott Kramer, 925-804-227810/08/18 RESXSyrah Court D. Under Construction AS AS 18-16 (#18080044) 808-43-005Burgundy (Formerly Home Ranch) Neighborhood in Glen Loma Ranch: 52 single-family detached homesMADSergio Perez, Project manager 925-730-137308/16/18 RESXS of Solorsano Middle School; E of Santa TeresaD. Under Construction AS AS 18-17 (#18080045) 808-18-017Margaux (Formerly Montonico) Neighborhood in Glen Loma Ranch: 84 single-family detached homesMADSergio Perez, Project manager 925-730-137308/16/18 RESXMerlot Drive D. Under Construction AS AS 18-14 (#18080026) 808-18-014, 808-18-018Provence (Formerly Wild Chestnut) Neighborhood in Glen LomaRanch: 43 single-family detached homesMADSergio Perez, Project manager 925-730-137308/09/18 RESX1981 Lavender Way D. Under Construction AS AS 18-10 (#18050024) 3,715 SF Single-Family Hillside Home PATony Rivellini, OwnerPhone: 408-607-324805/04/18 RESXE of Miller Ave. btwn Stanta Terasa Blvd and W of Luchessa AveD. Under Construction AS AS 18-05 (#18020002) A private park: a trail, a dog park, and other amentities in GLR MADRJA: Chris Patton 408-848-030002/01/18 INSX8955 Mimosa Ct. D. Under Construction AS AS 18-04 4418 sf SFR Hillside. JLD & Z Design, Architect 408-778-700501/17/18 RES7373 Monterey D. Under Construction DUP DUP 17-03 (#17100049) Lonely Oak Brewery. P18040068 KTGreg Jaso, Developer10/25/17 COMX8735 Wild Iris Drive D. Under Construction AS AS 17-19 (#17040037) Single-Family Hillside Home. P18030015 Issued 10/11/18 KTAlexander Angkawijaya, Architect 408-431-295204/26/17 RESX250 Gurries D. Under Construction AS AS 17-18 2846 sf duplex on R3 lot PW04/19/17 RES2140 Hollyhock Lane D. Under Construction AS AS 17-16 (#17040001) Single-Family Hillside Home. Building Permit 18040102 KTD & Z Design, ArchitectPhone: 408-778-700504/03/17 RESXEagle Ridge D. Under Construction AS AS 17-15 (#17030085)16-lot single-family hillside residentialdevelopment in Eagle Ridge JWD & Z Design, ArchitectPhone: 408-778-700503/30/17 RESX1820 Carob Court D. Under Construction AS AS 17-13 (#17030062) Single-Family Hillside Home. P18040085 & 19030092 for ADU KTJames Baldwin, Architect 408-448-201203/21/17 RESX2185 Hollyhock D. Under Construction AS AS 17-11 4878 sf DFR Hillside PA D & Z 03/09/17 RES9010 Tea Tree Way D. Under Construction AS AS 17-09 4ksf Hillside SFR PA03/07/17 RES2242 Columbine D. Under Construction AS AS 17-05 5,027sf New Hillside Residence JL02/07/17 RES205 Mayock Road D. Under Construction AS AS 17-04 10,000 sf addition to industrial building. B17080178 KT02/06/17 IND14051st Street and Kelton AvenueD. Under Construction ASAS 17-25 (#17070046)Z18-05 (18080018)12KSF commercial PUD. P18120128,29,30 etc KTChris Vanni, Applicant 408-847-919009/11/16 COM1980 Lavender Way D. Under Construction AS AS 16-39 NSFR Hillside JL G Moore 09/02/16 RES7430 Sunnydale Way D. Under Construction AS AS 16-30 NSFR Hillside JL G Moore 08/12/16 RES2261 Mantelli Drive D. Under Construction AS AS 16-26 SFR, Hillside w ADU JL Truong 07/01/16 RES2201 Columbine D. Under Construction AS AS 16-24 SFR Hillside JL J Suner 06/28/16 RES450 E 8th Street D. Under Construction MM MM 19-26, AS 16-08 Repairs and accessibility upgrades KT Eden Housing 03/24/16 RES8981 Tea Tree Way D. Under Construction AS AS 16-49 NSFR Hillside JL R Sharma 01/01/16 RES2241 Columbine D. Under Construction AS AS 15-38 SFR, Hillside JL John Kennedy 11/06/15 RES7320, 7330, 7340Monterey D. Under Construction AS AS 15-37 (#15100042) Renovation of a downtown URM building. Approved 5/26/17 JWGeorge Ramstad, Architect 408-842-994210/26/15 COMX360-380 Obata Way D. Under Construction AS AS 15-34 (#15100018)Two industrial lots -- construction storage yards. Bgrade 18030094 issued 10/17/19KTCarl Salinas/Hanna & Brunetti/Lon Davis, 408-842-217310/12/15 INDXG:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Commission, Committee, Task Force\Planning Commission (PC)\3. PC Informational Items\Planning Current Project Log\2020\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_10PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_107.APacket Pg. 106Communication: August 10, 2020 Planning Division Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS) Planning Current Project Log58450 Wren Avenue D. Under Construction AS AS 15-24 (#15060011) 70 single-family residence MADBridgit Koller, Calatlantic HomesPhone: 925-315-03666/5/15 RESIS/MNDIntersection of Anson Ct. and Evergreen Ct. D. Under Construction AS AS 14-39 (#14100010)6 single-family homes and an 8,600 SF common open space area MADD & Z Design, ArchitectPhone: 408-778-700510/6/14 RESMNDPortrush Lane & Walton Heath CourtE. CompleteMM 20-01Misc Eagle Ridge Tracts, DRG for Architectural Design and GradingKJRyan Orluck, Toll Brothers1/27/2020RESX6805 Silacci E. Complete M M 20-01 841-70-024 New Office / Warehouse buildings. Reference AS 20-07. MCJeffrey Krausse (Architect)991-327-1311General IndustrialM-2 1/17/20 IND 2 44140201, 221 Yamane Drive E. Complete M M 19-19 (19120034)DRG for a contractor's yard for a pavement/concrete installation and maintenance CompanyMCJohn Moniz / Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar(408) 848-0300 12/26/19 INDHecker pass & Santa TeresaE. Complete M M 19-16 810-66-012 DRG for new 48 unit townhome development JW Michael Sullivan 408-802-3110 10/15/19 RES681 Leavesly E. Complete MM MM 19-22 (19080035) 835-30-012Storefont improvements for H&M in Gilroy premium outlets. Portions of existing center to be painted white to match H&M prototype.DR / PA Jim Fulmer 408-842-3732 GS C-3 8/1/198/26/19CO 28845Citywide E. Complete M M 19-09 Historic Resources Evaluations - Various Downton Locations JW City 07/03/19 POL7170 Lahinch Drive E. Complete AS AS 18-30 (#18100051) New Swimming Pool/ Spa in Residential Hillside. P18080024 KTJose Ontiveros, Contractor/ Designer, 408-202-213110/22/18 RESXCitywideE. Complete M M 18-24 (#18090008)Review of Planning Agenda and BylawsSO City 09/11/18 MISCXCitywideE. Complete M M 18-23 (#18090007)Housing Policy C.C. Study SessionSKCity 09/05/18 POLX10th and ChestnutE. Complete M M 18-14 (#18070006)Proposed commercial development in C3, CM split zoned 6+ acre site - Preapplication review and Traffic Study underwayKTTenth and Chestnut, Evergreen07/03/18 COMX5987 Obata Way E. Complete CUP CUP 18-01 (#18050004)Conditional use permit to legalize expansion of an existing recycling facility - Forwarded to Code Enforcement KTGordon D. Warner, Applicant05/01/18 INDX9175 Tea Tree Way E. Complete AS AS 18-06 (#18020025) Single Family Hillside Home. P18060120 KTD & Z Design, Architect 408-778-700502/16/18 RESX6500 & 6700 Cameron Blvd. E. Complete AS/HPAS 17-08 (#17030017),HP 18-09 (#18060019)40,125 sf addition to an existing self-storage facility. Bldg Permits 18050122, 23, 24KTGilroy Storage LLC, DeveloperPhone: 530-886-855803/06/17 INDX5480 Monterey E. Complete AS AS 16-46 (#16100023)Construction of a grocery and dry goods distribution center that includes a 347,651 square-foot warehouse SOPerformance Food Group, LLCPhone: 415-200-946010/21/16 INDEIR8955 Monterey E. Complete AS/ZAS 16-19 (#16080053)Z 17-03 (#16080006)78-unit apartment complex with new 4,600 commercial space JWJan R. Hochhauser, Architect805-962-2746, Ext. 10208/31/16 01/07/19 RESMND5975Travel Park CircleE. Complete AS AS 14-46 (#14120015)Hampton Inn 4-story 100 room hotel. P16090068, 19100037, 19060045,46KTKevin Nijjar, DeveloperPhone: 559-264-565012/11/14 COMIS/MNDMonterey Rd. and Ervin Ct.E. Complete AS AS 14-41 (#14100051) Gateway Senior Apartment, 75 units JWDouglas L. Gibson, ApplicantPhone: 208-908-487110/28/14 RESMND210 Shire E. Complete/VOID AS AS 20-12 (20070005) New Deck; Project voided and reviewed through building permit. MC8455 Wren Avenue E.Complete CUP CUP 18-02 (#18070065) Conditional use permit for a pre-school at an existing church MCGrant Bennett, Applicant 408-847-600007/30/18 COMX2256 Coral Bell Court F. On Hold CUP/ASCUP 16-04 (#16080006)AS 16-38 (16080053)New AT&T wireless antenna facility SKPaul Strom, ApplicantPhone: 734-812-874108/31/16 INSCitywide F. On Hold Z Z 15-16 (#15120033)Zone Text Amendment - Administrative Hearing ProcessSO City 12/14/15 POLXVickery & Kern AvenuesF. On Hold A/ZA 12-01 (#12110049)Z 12-09 (#12110052)Annexation of 5.46 acres and prezone to Neighborhood District MADMark Hewell, DeveloperPhone: 408-483-240011/26/12MIX (POL/RES/COM)MNDG:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Commission, Committee, Task Force\Planning Commission (PC)\3. PC Informational Items\Planning Current Project Log\2020\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_10PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG 2020_08_107.APacket Pg. 107Communication: August 10, 2020 Planning Division Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)