HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2018 Planning Commission - Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
November 5, 2018 5:04 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR
Mayor Roland Velasco
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Marie Blankley
Dion Bracco
Daniel Harney
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Fred Tovar
Cat Tucker
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF GILROY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2018
CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org
AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY
THE CITY COUNCIL. Persons wishing to address the Counc il are requested, but not required, to
complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances. Public testimony is subject to reasonable
regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. A minimum
of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and
Staff. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408)
846-0204. A sound enhancement system is also available for use in the City Council Chambers.
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 City Council a t, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final
administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.
A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City
on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstance s, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of
Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials
are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to
Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a
holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single
meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or
Sunday.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
11/5/2018 Page2 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the
people and that City operations are open to the people's review.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE
OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Invocation
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
4. Roll Call
B. Orders of the Day
C. Employee Introductions
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Certificate of Recognition for Retiring Employee Gary Carpenter
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council
on matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of
any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the
Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public members for
Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not on the agenda” will be
limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.)
A. Presentation by Assemblymember Anna Caballero
B. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Annual Presentation to Council
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
11/5/2018 Page3 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco –Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCRWA Board, Street
Naming Committee, SC Valley Joint Water Resources Committee, URM Task Force
Council Member Tucker – Caltrain Citizen's Advisory Committee, Gilroy Welcome
Center, General Plan Advisory Committee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency
Governing and Implementation Boards, Recycling and Waste Commission
Council Member Blankley - Gilroy Sister Cities Association, HSR Sub-Committee, SC
Valley Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA Board, South County United for
Health, Street Naming Committee
Mayor Pro Tempore Harney – Gilroy Downtown Business Association, Gilroy Gardens
Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing and Implementation Boards,
Santa Clara Valley Clean Energy Authority, VTA Board (Alternate), VTA Policy Advisory
Committee
Council Member Tovar – Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan Advisory Board, SCRWA
Board, Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, Economic Development Corporation Board,
Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board, HSR Station Area Planning Advisory
Committee & HSR Sub-Committee, Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. Water Comm.,
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA), VTA Mobility Partnership
Mayor Velasco – Gilroy Youth Task Force, Economic Development Corporation Board,
General Plan Advisory Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, South County Youth
Task Force Policy Team, South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee , VTA South
County City Group, URM Task Force
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring
to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the
consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be
discussed in the order in which it appears.
A. Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting
B. Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc. (The City Administrator recommends
a “yes” vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the
claim)
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS - NONE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
11/5/2018 Page4 A. Tentative Map Request to Subdivide a 8.36 Acre Site into 14 Single-family
Residential Lots Ranging From 6,660 Square Feet to 21,890 Square Feet,
With Two Common Parcels and Dedication of 3.7 Acres to the U vas Creek
Park Preserve, on a Property Located Between the Northern End of
Greenfield Drive and Uvas Creek, APN 808-20-008, The James Group c/o
James Suner, Applicant (continued from 10/15/2018)
1. Staff Report: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Close Public Hearing
4. Possible Action:
Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting a
mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program
and approving Tentative Map TM 16-02 creating 14 single-family residential lots,
two common parcels and one public park parcel located at the northerly terminus
of Greenfield Drive and south of Uvas Creek; APN 808-20-008, filed by James
Suner.
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Adding a
New Section 30.38.270 to the Gilroy City Code Entitled "Protected Tree
Removal" (Z16-05)
1. Staff Report: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Motion to adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting
amendments to Article 30.38 of the Gilroy City Code entitled “Landscaping,
Water Efficiency and Stormwater Retention and Treatment” to add a new section
30.38.270 entitled “Protected Tree Removal Ordinance” (introduced 10/15/18
with a 6-0-1 vote, Council Member Tovar absent).
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Budget Amendments for the Purchase of a Property at 271
Lewis Street and Assignment of the City's Option to Purchase 271 Lewis
Street to HouseKeys
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
11/5/2018 Page5 1. Staff Report: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Approval of budget amendments totaling $125,332.31, consisting of $50,184
from the Housing Trust Fund, $36,698.48 from the CalHOME fund,
$30,579.13 from the BEGIN Reuse fund; $7,780.70 from the Los Arroyos
fund, to allow HouseKeys to purchase the property at 271 Lewis Street ; and
b) Authorize the City Administrator to execute an Assignment of Option
assigning the City’s Option to Purchase 271 Lewis Street, Gilroy to
HouseKeys.
B. Report on Potable Water Demand and Supply for Imminent Developments
and Budget Appropriation from Water Enterprise Fund for Design of a New
Well System
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Receive report on imminent development in the next few years and projected
demand for potable water; and,
b) Authorize a budget appropriation of $200,000 to start design for a new well
site and associated systems.
C. Consideration of a Proposed One-Year Pilot Program to Grant Local Non-
Profit Organizations the Waiving of Facility Reservations Fees
1. Staff Report: Maria De Leon, Recreation Department Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approval of a one-year pilot program waiving facility reservation fees for local
non-profit organizations one-time per a year in support of their fundraising efforts.
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIII. CLOSED SESSION - NONE
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING DATES
NOVEMBER, 2018
5* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
19* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
26* Special Meeting/Study Session on Downtown revitalization and proposed
incentives - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
DECEMBER, 2018
3* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
10* Special Meeting/Board & Commission Interviews - 6:00 p.m., City Council
Chambers
17* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
11/5/2018 Page6
JANUARY, 2019
7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
28* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
* meeting is webstreamed and televised
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
October 15, 2018
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by
1. Presentation of the Flags and Pledge of Allegiance Led by Boy Scout Cub
Pack 794 Webelos
The flags were presented by Boy Scout Cub Pack 794 Webelos. They then led
the pledge of allegiance.
2. Invocation
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Freels announced that the agenda was posted on October 10, 2018 at
2 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mayor Roland Velasco Mayor Present 6:00 PM
Marie Blankley Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Dion Bracco Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Daniel Harney Mayor Pro Tempore Present 6:00 PM
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Fred Tovar Council Member Absent
Cat Tucker Council Member Present 6:00 PM
B. Orders of the Day
There were no agenda changes.
C. Employee Introductions
Community Development Director Abrams introduced newly promoted
Management Assistant Christina Ruiz.
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Certificate of Recognition for Retiring Employee Susan Voss
Mayor Velasco presented the certificate
2. Proclamation Recognizing October 15-19, 2018 as Chamber of
Commerce Week
Mayor Velasco presented the proclamation.
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
6.A
Packet Pg. 7 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
Ronald Kirkish spoke on homeless concerns at Top Tip Toe salon describing the
vandalism and blight caused by homeless individuals.
Johnny Nguyen spoke on the issue with homeless at Top Tip Toe salon and
spoke on the 30% loss in revenue caused by the continual vandalism and
IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Blankley spoke on the upcoming Sister Cities Association
dinner on November 2nd.
Mayor Pro Tempore Harney spoke on the toll changes on highway 237 and
updated the Council on the current Measure B lawsuit and then announced the
success of the Ducky Derby at Gilroy Gardens. He then spoke on the employee
years of service award BBQ the prior Friday.
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz spoke on the forum at San Ysidro park and
reported on the Cities Association discussions of automated vehicles for
municipal use.
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Leroe-Munoz requested that the automated vehicle presentation
by the Cities Association.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
RESULT: APPROVE Items B, C, D, F, G [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
B. Appointment of Council Member Tucker as City Representative Member on
the Caltrain Policy Group and Council Member Leroe-Munoz as Alternate
C. Consideration of the Approval of a Mills Act Agreement for a Property
Located at 222 Martin Street (MA 18-01)
D. Approval of a Final Map and Property Improvement Agreement 2018-06 for
the Hecker Pass Heartland Triangle Project, Tract 10482, APN 810-20-029
F. Opening of a Recruitment Period to Fill the Vacant Volunteer Position of
City Historian
G. Claim of Rhiannon Labrie (The City Administrator recommends a “yes”
vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
6.A
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
RESULT: APPROVE Items A and E [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
A. Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Regular Meeting
E. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Establishing a Multi-
way Stop Control at the Intersection of Sixth Street and Eigleberry Street in
the City of Gilroy Pursuant to Section 15.40 of the Gilroy City Code
City Engineer Heap presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
VIII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
There were none.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Adding a New Section 30.38.270 to the Gilroy City Code Entitled "Protected
Tree Removal" (Z16-05)
The staff report was presented by Senior Planner Ketchum.
The public hearing was opened.
Mary Yates commented on the need to protect city trees describing climate
change and impacts to the California fire season.
The public hearing was then closed.
Possible Action:
Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and,
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
City x
City Clerk Freels read the ordinance title.
6.A
Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
Possible Action:
Motion to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
adopting amendments to Article 30.38 of the Gilroy City Code entitled
“Landscaping, Water Efficiency and Stormwater Retention and Treatment”
to add a new section 30.38.270 entitled “Protected Tree Removal
Ordinance”
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
B. Tentative Map Request to Subdivide a 8.36 Acre Site into 14 Single-family
Residential Lots Ranging From 6,660 Square Feet to 21,890 Square Feet,
With Two Common Parcels and Dedication of 3.7 Acres to the Uvas Creek
Park Preserve, on a Property Located Between the Northern End of
Greenfield Drive and Uvas Creek, APN 808-20-008, The James Group c/o
James Suner, Applicant
The item was introduced by Community Development Director Abrams.
The staff report was further presented by Senior Planner Tambornini.
The public hearing was opened.
James Suner project applicant spoke on design options required by staff,
suggesting other options and questioned the environmental review processes
required. He suggested that the alternate proposal he was presenting be
approved.
John Taft spoke on the issues he experienced with the development review
process and the environmental requirements set forth in the staff report.
Tom Cline of New Hope Community Church commented that he had been
involved with the property for several years, and detailed the project proposal.
Patricia Bentson described concerns with the project including the environmental
review and suggested further review of the proposal.
Connie Rogers commented that there had been compromise made between the
applicant and staff describing her support of the infill project.
Zachary Hilton explained that the Safe Routes to School report had been
provided that supported the paved bike trail as proposed in the project.
Herman Garcia of Coastal Habitat Environmental Education Restoration
presented his concerns with the setback to the Uvas Creek and explained that
the Fish and Game only allowed for a 150 foot setback.
The public hearing was then closed.
6.A
Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
Possible Action:
Continue the item to the November 5, 2018 meeting.
RESULT: CONTINUE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Peter Leroe-Muñoz
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Report on Oversized Recreational Vehicle Enforcement
Council Member Bracco recused from deliberations on the item noting that he
had a financial interest. He remained in the room as a member of the public.
The staff report was presented by Police Chief Smithee.
Public comment was opened.
Jan Chargin spoke on the towing of people’s homes explaining that the amount
of money being spent on towing their vehicles be duplicated.
Dion Bracco commented that his towing business towed motor homes there was
a lot of notice provided to owners, even free towing and the costs to tow were not
recouped when the owners of the towed vehicles did not pick up their RV's.
Shawn Weymouth described that the RV's were people’s homes and their
personal items were lost when their vehicles were taken.
Public comment was then closed.
Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
RECUSED: Dion Bracco
Council Member Bracco returned to the dais.
B. Report on Illegal Fireworks Enforcement on July 4, 2018
The staff report was presented by Police Chief Smithee.
There were no public comments.
6.A
Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
XI. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration of a Proposal from Garlic City BMX to Develop a +/-1.3-Acre
Dirt Pump Track (Bicycle Skills Area) Within a Vacant Portion of Land at
Christmas Hill Park
The staff report was presented by City Administrator Gonzalez.
Herman Garcia of Coastal Habitat Environmental Education Restoration who
explained that the location was chosen poorly, did not meet the Federal setback
environmental requirements and was on top of the children's garden which was
in re-planting stages.
Teresa Perez spoke in support of the proposal as it would be a visitor draw into
the community and was a good recreational activity for families.
Mary Yates commented that the area was a park preserve and not appropriate
for a BMX track and suggested the BMX track be incorporated into the city sports
park as identified in the general plan.
Connie Rogers spoke on the Uvas Creek Park Preserve and environmental
concerns with flooding suggesting that the BMX track be incorporated into the
sports park. She suggested the Parks and Recreation Commission be involved in
the proposal.
George Fohner suggested that the location be rethought and be consistent with
the Uvas Creek Park Preserve master plan.
John Anhder spoke in support of the proposal detailing his son's interest in BMX
biking.
Mary Garcia spoke in favor of the proposal describing the recreational activity.
Patricia Bentson suggested another location due to the Uvas Creek Park
Preserve.
Jim Garcia spoke in favor of the proposal detailing the benefits it would bring to
the City.
6.A
Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
7
City Council Meeting Minutes
10/15/2018
Possible Action:
Provide direction to staff to draft a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Gilroy and Garlic City BMX so that Garlic City BMX can
proceed with site evaluation, project development and fundraising
activities for the construction of a proposed dirt pump track at Christmas
Hill Park.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tucker
ABSENT: Fred Tovar
XII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
XIII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
City Administrator Gonzalez reported that the ERP and land management
system mapping processes was underway and he then updated the Council on
the First Street construction, and a land analysis study which was underway
XIV. CLOSED SESSION - NONE
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels, MMC
City Clerk
6.A
Packet Pg. 13 Communication: Minutes of the October 15, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc. (The City Administrator
recommends a “yes” vote under the Consent Calendar shall
constitute the denial of the claim)
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Human Resources Department
Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Prepared By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal
counsel, this claim is recommended for rejection.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA ) and/or legal
counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the
November 5, 2018 meeting:
Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc.
Attachments:
1. Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc.
6.B
Packet Pg. 14
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc. (1881 : Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc.)
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc. (1881 : Claim of Heinzen Manufacturing, Inc.)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Tentative Map Request to Subdivide a 8.36 Acre Site into 14
Single-family Residential Lots Ranging From 6,660 Square Feet to
21,890 Square Feet, With Two Common Parcels and Dedication of
3.7 Acres to the Uvas Creek Park Preserve, on a Property Located
Between the Northern End of Greenfield Drive and Uvas Creek,
APN 808-20-008, The James Group c/o James Suner, Applicant
(continued from 10/15/2018)
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Kraig Tambornini
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting a mitigated
negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approving
Tentative Map TM 16-02 creating 14 single-family residential lots, two common parcels
and one public park parcel located at the northerly terminus of Greenfield Drive and
south of Uvas Creek; APN 808-20-008, filed by James Suner.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Greenfield 14-lot residential subdivision project is located on an 8.66 acre
infill parcel between the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area and Villagio
8.A
Packet Pg. 17
neighborhoods. The project includes offer of dedication of 3.7 acres of land to Uvas
Creek Park Preserve with the remaining 4.66 acres developed at 3 units per acre.
The project orients lots backing onto the Uvas Creek Park Preserve, which conflicts with
design criteria contained within both the 1992 Uvas Creek Park Preserve Plan and the
Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (2002). Additional concerns were raised
regarding the design of the private road, site grading, and drainage. After several
meetings and revisions a majority of technical issues were substantially resolved.
However, the applicant requested a decision be made on the project with lots backing
onto open space as shown on revised plans submitted on March 15, 2018. Therefore,
on June 7, 2018 the project was forwarded to the Planning Commission with a
recommendation for denial.
After hearing testimony on the project from staff, the applicant and public, the Planning
Commission ultimately voted unanimously (6-0, 1 absence) to recommend approval of
the subdivision. The Planning commission concluded that the lot layout was consistent
with residential lots in Glen Loma Ranch and that fencing and retaining wall details
would sufficiently address security concerns. Based on the action of the Planning
Commission, staff completed environmental review for the project that incorpor ated
additional information, project revisions agreed to by the applicant, and prepared project
conditions of approval.
At its October 15, 2018 meeting the City Council conducted a public hearing and voted
to continue the project to the November 5, 2018 meeting in order to allow time for staff
and the applicant to meet in order to revise project conditions. As directed by the City
Council, staff met with the applicant on October 17th, and has prepared a revised
resolution for approval of TM16-02 reflecting the outcome of the meeting and in
response to Council direction.
POLICY DISCUSSION
The City Council is asked to consider whether the proposed 14-lot subdivision design
and improvements are appropriate for this site, including; a) the project net density of 3
units per acre, b) the private roadway design, c) the required acquisition of right of way
from Glen Loma to extend Greenfield Drive, d) the proposed open space offer of
dedication, e) the lot pattern, and f) the orientation of homes backing onto the Uvas
Creek Park Preserve open space.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Action: On June 7, 2018, at the applicant’s request, the project
was submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing and action , with a
recommendation for denial based on the fact the project had not addressed specific
development concerns identified by staff as necessary to comply with City plans and
policies. Specific reasons cited for denial included the following:
(1) The proposed map did not meet the minimum 3-7.25 unit per acre density for the
8.A
Packet Pg. 18
Low Density Residential General Plan designation.
(2) The proposed map removes mature trees in a riparian area, impacting Uvas Creek
riparian corridor and demonstrating inconsistency with General Plan Policy 1.1 .
(3) The proposed map would allow urban encroachment immediately adjacent to the
Uvas Creek riparian corridor which could impact the ecological, aesthetic, and
recreational value of the creek. This demonstrates inconsistency with General Plan
Policy 20.02.
(4) The design creates safety and security concerns due to concealed access to the
rear of the lots and lack of public visibility into the open space areas and users of
the trail.
Based on the staff recommendation for denial of the project the draft environmental
review document was not completed prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
However, after receiving testimony on the project, the Planning Commission passed a
motion 6-0 (member Rodriquez absent) to recommend approval of the subdivision
design, as proposed, with lots oriented with rear yards onto Uvas Creek Park Preserve
open space corridor. In support of this motion, the Planning Commission identified that
the development in Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area to the west included four
homes that had rear yards adjacent to the open space. Further, the applicant provide d a
survey which showed the net project density would be 3 units per acre. Lastly, the
Commission concluded safety and security concerns would be addressed by proposed
retaining walls and rear yard fencing, and with visibility into open space from resident ial
rear yards.
City Council Hearing: At the October 15, 2018 hearing on the project the Council
received testimony, discussed the project conditions, and expressed support of the
proposal subject to revisions to specific Special Planning Conditions of Approval
brought up as concerns by the applicant and Council. Staff was directed to meet with
the applicant to revise the conditions of approval, consistent with the direction provided
by the City Council. Staff met with the applicant on October 17th and the resolution has
been revised in accord with the direction provided. In addition, the applicant had
concerns with other conditions of approval, which were discussed and modified. The
changes are summarized in the next section (“Condition Modifications”) of this report.
The original staff report for the October 15th City Council meeting is included as an
attachment to this report. The mitigated negative declaration (MND) environmental
document, response to comments and mitigation monitoring and reporting program are
attached to this report. The appendices are available on the City of Gilroy website, at:
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects, under the Greenfield
Drive-14 Lot Residential Subdivision project.
Project Description: The Tentative Map Application (TM 16-02) requests approval to
develop 8.56 total acres within the R1 single family residential zoning district into 14
8.A
Packet Pg. 19
single-family residential lots, two common parcels within the development, and one
parcel dedicated for trails and passive open space along Uvas Creek. A homeowners
association (HOA) would be required for maintenance of the common improvements,
which include the roadway, drainage detention areas, retaining walls and the grade
separated private lot areas between the retaining and property lines along the Uvas
Creek preserve.
The total project area includes the 8.36 acre project site area plus 0.2 acres of private
open space property (off-site) that is required for right-of-way access from Greenfield
Drive. The developer would be required to acquire the additional right-of-way and
incorporate this into the development.
CONDITION MODIFICATIONS
Based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, direction of City Council,
and meeting with the applicant, staff has prepared findings and conditions deemed
appropriate to approve the subdivision. The changes made to the draft conditions in the
revised resolution, and which have been discussed with the applicant, are noted as
follows:
Condition 5 and Condition 6 regarding the filing of a notice of land use restrictions
and water allocations have been removed. Removal of the conditions has no effect
on the approval.
Condition 10 (new #18) revised to reflect the updated expiration date, consistent with
edits to the final resolution.
Condition 16 (new #14) and Condition 23 (new #21) revised to specify the timing of
landscape, lighting and equipment screening details would be required with
subdivision improvement plans.
Condition 29 requiring an arborist report has been deleted (this is addressed by
project mitigation measures).
Condition 30 (new #27) and Condition 33 (new #30) revised to specify that the final
landscape and irrigation plans would be submitted with the final landscape
improvement plans.
Condition 39 (new # 36) revised to eliminate building envelopes, as proposed on the
tentative map, so that these would not be a requirement of the development. Note:
This change primarily affects development on Lots 1 and 2 that had building
envelopes to show protection of existing oak trees. Removal of the condition would
allow future tree removal subject to a tree removal permit or replacement if removed
as part of subdivision grading.
Condition 40 (new #37) revised to stipulate that lower yard areas on lots 9 -14 shall
not be developed with accessory structures or grading. Note: This limitation is
consistent with plans reviewed for preliminary compliance with the HCP, City
8.A
Packet Pg. 20
drainage requirements and Santa Clara Valley Water District concerns. The
applicant has indicated agreement with the limitations noted in the condition.
Condition 41 (new #38) revised to allow internal barrier fencing on the lower lot
areas of 9-14.
Condition 42 has been deleted (no longer applies).
Condition 43 (new #39) revised to delete the last sentence regarding restriction of
access gates (not required to be specified as a condition).
Condition 44 (new #40) revised to specify the timing of the condition shall be
satisfied prior to tract acceptance.
Condition 45 (new #41) revised to note that this requirement applies if the retaining
walls remain as designed to support building pads for lots 9-14.
Condition 46 (new #42) revised to specify the outstanding processing fee amount
due.
Condition 83 and Condition 84 have been added to note the bike trail in the open
space parcel shall avoid wetlands, and to support efforts of the developer to seek
public dedication of parcel A to a non-City agency.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the City. The applicant has submitted fees
and is responsible for all staff costs associated with preparing this staff report and the
project environmental document. Future costs associated with preparation of the final
map, agreements, including legal fees will also be paid by the applicant. Cost for
subdivision improvement and ongoing maintenance also will be borne by the applicant
and future homeowners association. The development would not create any costs for
the City that have not previously been identified and considered.
Public facilities and service needs of the development have been considered as part of
the City General Plan, and are accounted for by the General Fund. The City would also
incur ongoing maintenance obligations for the trail and, potentially, open space areas;
those costs will be funded through general tax revenues.
NEXT STEPS
A Notice of Determination must be filed within 5 days of action, and the developer must
submit a final map within 2 years, or request an extension of time.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Consistent with CEQA, the 30 day environmental review period was published in the
newspaper and posted at the County Clerk’s office, and the document was submitted to
8.A
Packet Pg. 21
the State clearinghouse for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies and made
available for review at City Hall, the library and City website. Property owner information
(i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were provided to the City of
Gilroy using current ownership data. Consistent with Gilroy City Code 30.51.30, not less
than 10 days before the public hearing, on May 16, 2018, notices of the June 7, 2018
Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners and interested
parties, published in the newspaper and a 4’ by 8’ sign was installed on the property. On
or before October 5, 2018, notification was again provided pursuant to GCC 30.51.30
for the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting. In addition, public hearing packets are
available through the City's webpage.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map TM16-02
2. Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised
3. Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines
4. City Council Resolution 2006-75
5. CC Reso 2006-75 Prelim Site Plan
6. General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02
7. Final MND Responses to Comments
8. Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
9. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02
10. ISMND Signed Agreement Form
11. ISMND Determination, TM16-02
12. ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment
13. ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report
14. ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report
15. ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment
16. ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search
17. ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report
18. ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation
19. Project Plans TM 16-02
20. Conceptual Retaining Wall Detail TM16-02
21. Letter from The James Group
22. SRTS Greenfield Dr 14 Lot Homes
23. CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02
8.A
Packet Pg. 22
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE3AltaOakWayV il l a g e P la ceBrookWayBl a c kbe r ry Court
B e r r y b u s h Co u r t
Snowberry Ct
WestLuchessaAvenueGreenfield Drive
Cimino StreetAltaOakWayVillagePlace BrookWayBlackberry Court
Berrybush Court
Snowberry Ct
WestLuchessaAvenueGreenfield Drive
Cimino Street
Thomas RoadThomas Road
ResidentialGilroy High SchoolResidentialResidentialUvas CreekUvas CreekProject BoundaryAerial Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2, 2017. Photo Date: Apr. 20160 50 200 400 600 Feet
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Vicinity Map TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
1
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECELARATION
AND APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP TM 16-02, CREATING 14
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO COMMON PARCELS,
ONE PUBLIC PARK PARCEL, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY
TERMINUS OF GREENFIELD DRIVE AND SOUTH OF UVAS
CREEK, APN 808-20-008, FILED BY JAMES SUNER, 2201
COLUMBINE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020.
WHEREAS, James Suner submitted an application requesting tentative map
approval to subdivide an 8.36 acre site into 14 single-family lots, two common lots
containing private roadways and stormwater detention, a 3.7 acre public park parcel to be
dedicated as an extension of Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space, and associated public
and private improvements within the R1 single-family zone district; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located at the northern end of Greenfield
Drive, south of Uvas Creek, east of Las Animas Elementary School/Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan Area development, and east of Villagio residential development (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 808-20-008); and
WHEREAS, the tentative map application was referred to various public utility
companies and City departments, including the Technical Advisory Committee for
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
TM 16-02 on June 7, 2016, at which public hearing the Planning Commission considered
the proposed project, staff report, public comments and testimony, and all other
documentation or other evidence received on the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project substantially
conforms to the intent of the Gilroy General Plan and elements thereof, the Gilroy City
Code, and all applicable standards and criteria, and on voted 6-0 (1 absence) to
recommend the project to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) was completed for the
project and made available for a 30-day public review period on July 27, 2018, in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and
mitigation measures have been identified sufficient to address the environmental effects
of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan has been prepared,
consistent with the MND; and
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
2
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 15,
2018, and considered the public testimony, the Planning Commission recommendation,
the City Council Staff Report, and all other documentation related to application TM 16-
02; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the matter to November 5, 2018, with
direction given to staff to meet with the applicant, and submit a resolution with revised
conditions of approval reflecting recommendations of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, using its independent judgement, and analysis based on deliberation
and consideration of the materials presented at the public hearings, including public
testimony received, the City Council concludes the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for TM 16 -02 adequately
assesses all potential environmental impacts of the project, mitigating potential impacts to
a less than significant level, and that the project as proposed and conditioned conforms to
the City's General Plan and elements thereof, the Gilroy City Code and all applicable
standards and criteria. Further, the City of Gilroy Community Development Department
is the custodian for all documents pertaining to the FMND, including its adoption, and
the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of
Gilroy does hereby make findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act,
the Gilroy City Code and the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 and take action to
adopt the Mitigating Negative Declaration and approving TM 16-02, as follows:
SECTION I – CEQA Findings
1. Based upon the Record, the submissions by the Project Sponsor(s), the
information in the staff report and provided from other interested parties, the
oral testimony presented at this public hearing, and all other written materials
submitted by all parties, the City Council hereby finds that the contents of
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the procedures through which the
MND was prepared, publicized, and reviewed complied with the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq.) (CEQA). 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.
(the “CEQA Guidelines”).
2. The City Council further finds that the MND is adequate, accurate and
objective, reflected the independent analysis and judgment of the City
Council, and that the summary of comments and responses contained no
significant revisions to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND), and adopts the MND for the Project in compliance with CEQA.
3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the IS/MND and the record as
a whole and finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment with the adoption of the
mitigation measures contained in the mitigation monitoring and reporting
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
3
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
program (MMRP) to avoid potentially significant environmental effects
associated with the Project, and hereby adopts the MND.
4. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the project, incorporated herein. All required mitigation measures
identified in the IS/MND and contained in the MMRP are included as
conditions of approval.
5. The City Council further finds that since the MND was finalized, there have
been no substantial project changes and no substantial changes in project
circumstances that would require major revisions to the MND due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the
severity of previously identified significant impacts, and there is no new
information of substantial importance that would change the conclusions set
forth in the MND.
SECTION II – Tentative Map Findings
1. The subdivision request TM 16-02, including the design and improvement of
the subdivision, would be substantially consistent with all applicable City of
Gilroy General Plan goals, objectives, policies and programs, including the
low density residential land use designation given that the project, as proposed
and conditioned, would:
a. Promote infill residential development in an area designated for this type
of use and that would be compatible with the existing adjacent single-
family residential neighborhoods, near parks and schools, and would
protect natural resources, which would be consistent with the Strategic
Direction Chapter;
b. Avoid encroachment into open space areas and provides a net density of 3
units per acre within remaining buildable areas of the site, after dedication
of 3.7 acres of land for public park and open space, which would be
substantially consistent with Community Design Chapter Policies 1.01,
1.05, 1.09;
c. Dedicate public land for the Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space, which
would include extension of planned bicycle trails (consistent with the
adopted 1992 Uvas Creek Park Preserve Plan, the 2002 Park & Recreation
System Master Plan and the 2005 Gilroy Trails Master Plan), which would
be in substantial compliance with Public Facilities and Services Chapter
policies 16.02, 16.04, 16.05, 16.12, and 16.14; and
d. Avoid and protect sensitive open space habitat along Uvas Creek by
providing a setback of 150 feet from top of creek bank, satisfying the
minimum setback of 100 feet from top of bank and 35 feet setback from
the edge of riparian habitat to the parcels, consistent with Community
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
4
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
Resources Chapter policies 20.01, 20.02, 20.03, 20.06, 20.07, 20.08 and
Action 20.B.
e. The site is not covered by a specific plan document, thus no findings for
consistency are required for this criteria to comply with the State
Subdivision Map Act. However, right of way access to the site would be
extended through a small corner of City open space property within the U
Ranch Specific Plan area. This acquisition is minimal and would not
materially impact the value, use or access for this existing open space
amenity.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed development type and density
given that the site contains 4.66 acres of building area upland from portions of
the property within the Uvas Creek Park Preserve riparian corridor open
space, which can accommodate a net density of 3 units per acre. Further, all
proposed residential lots would be located upland of the flood plain along
Uvas Creek, grading would be implemented in accordance with standard
engineering practices and there are no unusual soils conditions associated with
the site that would preclude use of fill for development, and public utilities
and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve TM 16-01 are in
close proximity, at the existing terminus of Greenfield Drive.
3. TM 16-01 is consistent with the Gilroy City Code Zoning Ordinance
including the R1 District Standards, the Subdivision and Land Development
Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and all City ordinances, policies and
standards in effect as of the date the application was accepted as complete for
processing on July 12, 2017, given that the development promotes single-
family residential development with minimum 6,600 square foot lots sizes,
improvements would comply with adopted City Engineering Standards and
Specifications for minimum 36 foot wide minimum paved private roadway
width, public utility easements, street trees, lighting, utility infrastructure,
drainage and stormwater management, and flood control, and interim
residential dwelling unit allocations were been granted for the project on May
17, 2016 and have not expired .
4. The subdivision design and improvements would not result in environmental
damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as identified in the MND,
given that all significant environmental impacts associated with the project
have been identified and would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
5. The design of the applicant agrees with the necessity of and accepts all
elements, requirements, and conditions of this resolution as being a reasonable
manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work, visit
or live in this subdivision in particular.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
5
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
6. The subdivision design and improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at larger for access through or use of the property
within the proposed subdivision as follows:
a. As proposed an easement for Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be
preserved and maintained within the proposed Parcel A dedication.
b. As proposed and conditioned, the development would complete public
trails through the site, connect the trails with the proposed development
and adjacent developments to the east and west.
c. As conditioned, would provide public access through the development
along the proposed private roadway and sidewalks.
d. As conditioned, the developer would acquire access across 0.2 acres of
land owned by Glen Loma Ranch as public open space, for additional road
right of way as necessary to extend Greenfield Drive into the property.
This acquisition for roadway access is minimal and necessary to provide
suitable access for development of the site consistent with the General
Plan, and would not conflict with nor materially diminish the use these
affected public open space lands.
7. The development is adjacent to wildlife vegetation and requires additional
findings to be made pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act for properties within
wildland urban interface areas. As conditioned by the Fire Department, the
findings for approval of development in wildland urban interface areas would
be satisfied as follows:
a. The project would be required to comply with vegetation management
requirements for property within potential fire hazard areas. This would
include ongoing specific vegetation management practices that would be
enforced by the City and made the responsibility of the property owners
and homeowners association for private open space vegetation of Lots 9-
14, and the City for the Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space. Based on
the proposed plans and conditions, the project would be consistent with
the fire safety regulations adopted by the State and City Fire Department
pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291.
b. Adequate fire suppression services would be available to the area based on
the provision of adequate access roads and fire hydrants that would be
installed to serve the project.
c. Ingress and egress is provided for the subdivision that meets minimum
standards for 20 foot wide paved roadway, grades not exceeding 15
percent, and adequate turning radius provided for maneuverability through
the development.
8. As proposed and conditioned, the project would comply with all ordinances,
policies and standards in effect as of June 2017 (when the project application
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
6
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
was accepted as complete, as well as any standards adopted by the state for
the purpose of protecting public health and safety.
SECTION II - Actions
1. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for TM 16-02
Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision project.
2. The City Council hereby approves TM 16-02, subject to the conditions of
approval set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a
regular meeting duly held on the 5th day of November, 2018, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
7
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TM 16-02
Note: The following abbreviations identify the City department or division responsible
for determining compliance with these conditions. The first group listed has
responsibility for compliance at plan check, the second confirms compliance with
the condition at final inspection, prior to final occupancy or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, or as specified in the condition. If only one group is
identified, they have responsibilities from initial review through compliance
verification. An internal condition reference number is located at the end of each
condition (e.g. G-1 or MND-S2).
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS
BL Building Division/Inspectors PK Parks/Landscape Design
CA City Attorney PL Planning Division
CC Chemical Control Agency PW Public Works/Engineering
FP Fire Prevention TR Traffic Division
PD Police Department WW Wastewater/Source Control
GENERAL PROJECT CONDITIONS
1. Approved Plans. Approval of Tentative Map TM16-02 is granted for approved
plans stamped as “Approved on November 5, 2018” (“the plans”) on file with the
Planning Division. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as
otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to
the plans shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee,
may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State,
and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies
adopted by City Council. (PL, G-1)
2. Developer. Developer means permit applicant, property owner, operator, permittee,
lessee, and/or tenants using the space(s) for the intended use(s). Developer shall
comply with project conditions for the life of the project. (CA, G-2)
3. Indemnification Agreement. Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval,
at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees
and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the
City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to
challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any
condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken,
including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the
approval process. (CA, G-3)
4. Acceptance of Conditions. Failure to appeal this decision in a timely manner, or
commencement of any activity related to the project, in understood to clarify
Developer’s acceptance of all conditions and obligations imposed by this permit
and waiving any challenge to the validity of the conditions and obligations stated
herein. (CA, G4)
5. Covenants and Restrictions. Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs)
applicable to the project property shall be consistent with the terms of this permit
and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or
this permit, the City Code or this permit shall prevail. (PL/CA, G-11)
6. Enforcement Action. If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the
conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject revocation
or other appropriate enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs
associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or
tenant. (CA, G-7)
7. Occupancy Restriction. Prior to occupancy of residential units and/or acceptance
of the subdivision tract, Developer shall complete all required offsite and onsite
improvements related to the project, including structures, paving, and landscaping,
unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development Director, or stated in
these conditions. (BL, G-8)
8. Expiration. The tentative map shall have an initial expiration period of twenty-four
(24) months from the approval date if the final map is not approved prior to the
initial expiration date of November 5, 2020, subject to extensions of time that may
granted as provided pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act. (PL, G-12)
9. Extension Requests. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit
expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written
application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests
may be considered pursuant to the City Code. Should the project approvals expire,
allocations granted for 14 residential units pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section
30.50.60 shall likewise expire. (PL, G-5)
PLANNING DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS
10. Subsequent Permits. Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating
any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including but
not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas, model home
sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications.
Developer shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or
issuance, as applicable. (PL/BL, PL-1)
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
9
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
11. Architectural and Site Review. Architectural and Site Review shall be obtained
for development of four or more residential parcels within the project, pursuant to
Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.41(a)(5).
12. Building Plan Details. Developer plans for building permit applications for future
residences shall identify all exterior building materials and colors, including product
and finish manufacturer name, color name and number, and surface finish type (e.g.
stucco with sand finish, plaster with smooth finish) to be used in construction,
subject to review for compliance with Zoning standards. This shall include review
and requirement for compliance with the site design requirements of Gilroy City
Code Section 30.5.50 which specifies that new residences shall have at least 3 of
the following 5 design elements to differentiate from residences on adjacent lots on
the same street frontage(PL, PL-2):
(A) Floor plan.
(B) Front Elevation.
(C) Roof Design.
(D) Exterior Materials.
(E) Reversed floor plan.
13. Conditions on Plan Sets. Developer shall submit plans that include, on all sets, a
reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision-
maker. (PL, PL-3)
14. Landscape and Lighting. Developer shall submit combined final landscape and
lighting plan improvement plans to verify location of street trees and street light
standards shall not conflict with drainage plans, landscape plans, tree locations,
parking spaces, or any other such land use concerns. (PL, PL-6)
15. Habitat Conservation Permit. Concurrent with or prior to an application for a
grading permit, Developer shall apply for a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan permit
from the City of Gilroy. The grading permit will be issued only after payment of
assessed fees and approval of the Habitat Plan permit. (PL, P L-9)
16. Habitat Conservation Fee Payment. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,
Developer shall present to the Community Development Director or designee, a
receipt issued by Santa Clara County for full payment of the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan fees for associated with the proposed development. Such receipt shall
be dated within six (6) months of the grading permit issuance date, or the fee
amount may be reassessed and difference collected at the time of grading permit
issuance. (PL, PL-10)
17. Construction Noise. To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise,
Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and
construction plans issued for the subject site (PL/BL, PL-11)
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
10
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
“During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall
implement the following measures at the construction site:
(A) Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and
on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited
on Sundays and City-observed holidays;
(B) Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project
area;
(C) Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing
the project site;
(D) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
(E) Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
(F) Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists; and
(G) Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler,
etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the
problem.”
18. Air Quality. To minimize potential construction-related impacts to air quality,
Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and
construction plans issued for the project site (PL/BL, PL-12):
“During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall
implement the following basic control measures at the construction site:
(A) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day;
(B) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite
shall be covered;
(C) All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited;
(D) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles
per hour;
(E) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used;
(F) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points;
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
11
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
(G) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
(H) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.”
19. Archaeological Resources. In the event of an accidental discovery of
archaeological resources during grading or construction activities, Developer shall
include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans
issued for the project site (BL/PL, PL-13):
“If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving,
grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters
(165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring
professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If
a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified
immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at
Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is
determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated
by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.”
20. Cultural Resources. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any
human remains, Developer shall include the following language in all grading, site
work, and construction plans (BL/PL, PL-14):
“If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction
activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the
coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the
cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native
American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the
person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the
deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating
or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his
authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is
unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24
hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to
make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative
rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
12
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner.”
21. Equipment Screening. Developer shall provide screening of all mechanical
equipment, post indicator valves, backflow prevention devices, etc., shown on final
improvement plans. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers
shall not be visible from any public right-of-way and shall be adequately screened
through the use or combination of low concrete or masonry walls, berms, and
landscaping. (PL, PL-17)
22. Any masonry or concrete walls used for screening purposes shall comply with front
and street side yard height limits and be setback from property lines or back of
sidewalks at least 3-feet in order to accommodate landscaping along the exterior
facing elevation. (PL-22)
23. Backflow preventers shall be painted dark green, except the fire connection which
shall be painted yellow. Interior lot lines may be delineated by fencing, constructed
of wood material. (PL-17)
24. The final placement and design of the equipment and screening for the items in the
above conditions 23, 24 and 25, shall be to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee.
25. Homeowners Association. Developer shall establish a Homeowners’ Association
(HOA) for the development. The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and
enforcement of parking, private streets, common landscaping, recreation and other
interior areas held in common by the HOA. Such responsibilities shall be provided
within the CC&Rs for the development. (PL, PL-27)
26. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the CC&R’s shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval to confirm the items required in these conditions of approval
have been satisfied; subject to review by the Community Development Director,
City Engineer and City Attorney.
PLANNING LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS
27. Developer shall submit a Landscape and Irrigation Plan for common areas with
completed Landscape Documentation Package, including a soil
analysis/management report along with appropriate application review fees, to the
Community Development Department, including required documentation for
compliance verification, and obtain approval of such plans. Landscaping plans shall
include details for tree mitigation and include planting along the retaining wall
system supporting the Lots 9-14 building pads. (PL, PL-43)
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
13
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
28. As part of the Landscape Plan submittal, Developer shall not include any invasive
plant species, such as those listed by the California Invasive Plant Council. (PL, PL-
44)
29. As part of the Landscape Plan submittal, Developer shall clarify a minimum three
(3) inch layer of mulch to be applied on all exposed soil surfaces, as required by the
State MWELO. (PL, PL-45)
30. With the final landscape plan submittal, Developer shall (as part of the irrigation
system) include sensors that suspend or alter irrigation operation during unfavorable
weather conditions (e.g. automatic rain shut-off devices). (PL, PL-42)
31. Prior to occupancy or and/or final tract acceptance, Developer shall submit a signed
Certificate of Completion, along with all necessary supporting documentation and
payment to the Community Development Department, for compliance verification
of the landscape installation. Developer shall complete installation of all
landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans. (PL-47, PL-48)
32. Developer is required under MWELO to provide a copy of the approved Certificate
of Completion to the property owner or his or her designee. Prior to completion of
each build-out phase of development, Developer shall provide the Community
Development Director or designee a summary of each lot in that phase and timing
of compliance with this requirement. (PL, PL-49)
33. For the life of the project, Developer and/or HOA hall maintain common
landscaping and irrigation improvements in accordance with the approved plans,
except as otherwise permitted or required by law. Significant changes to the
number, placement, and selection of plant species may require a modification to this
approval, to be determined by the Community Development Director or designee.
(PL, PL-50)
PLANNING DIVISION SPECIAL CONDITIONS
34. Off-site improvements. Developer shall comply with the requirements of the
Engineering Division for all off-site right of way improvements, which includes
acquiring the right of way access to connect Greenfield Drive with the project
roadway.
35. Public/Private Roadway Demarcation. The improvement plans shall provide a
distinctive pavement treatment to demarcate the transition from public to private
roadway, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and City Engineer.
36. The Building Envelopes that are shown on the tentative map shall not be required.
37. Private Open Space Restrictions for Lots 9 thru 14. The area extending from the
top of the uppermost retaining wall to the rear and side property lines of Lot 9
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
14
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
through Lot 14, which back up to the Uvas Creek preserve, shall be restricted as
follows: No structures, ornamental landscaping, private garden areas, accessory
structures, grading, decks, pools, or hardscape improvements shall be permitted
within the private open areas. The private open space shall be maintained with
approved native or compatible landscaping, and open view fencing only, which is
complementary and compatible with the adjacent public open space vegetation.
Any modification shall be subject to review and approval of the Community
Development Director or designee for compliance with these conditions and Gilroy
City Code.
38. Private Open Space View Fencing Requirement for Lots 9 thru 14). The
Developer shall install open view fencing along the rear of building envelopes (on
top of the uppermost retaining wall) and along the perimeter of the private open
space areas of Lots 9 through Lot 14. The open view fencing details shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division with grading permits or
improvement plans. Fencing shall be installed prior to occupancy of residences on
these lots. The open view fencing restrictions shall be included in the project
CC&R’s. Any modification to this requirement shall be subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Director or designee and the Public
Works Director for compliance with these conditions and Gilroy City Code.
39. Public Access Easement. Public access easements shall be granted for sidewalks
and roadways through the development.
40. Common Improvements. Developer shall complete all required common
landscaping, street trees, lighting and tree mitigation. A phasing schedule may be
submitted for approval by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of grading
permits. All improvements must be completed prior to acceptance of the Tract map.
41. Common Retaining Wall Design. Should the retaining wall be used, plans shall
indicate a minimum grade separation of five feet (5’) that shall be maintained
between the two maximum five-foot (5’) tall retaining walls that are proposed to
support the fill and building envelopes of lots 9 through 14. This area shall be
planted with landscaping designed to prevent climbing and soften the appearance of
the wall. Similar landscaping shall be included along the base of the wall.
42. Processing Fees. Outstanding application processing fees in the amount of
$9,796.81shall be paid, consistent with the application reimbursement agreement.
Any outstanding fees must be received prior to recordation of the Final Map.
PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval,
consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared and adopted
for the project.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
15
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
43. (MM AIR-1.1) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average
of at least 30 percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible
plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
(A) All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower
and operating on the site for more than two days shall meet, at a minimum,
U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or
equivalent.
(B) Generator used to provide power shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA
particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Or
their usage shall be limited to 100 hours total.
44. (MM BIO-1.1) Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to
the start of construction activities, if construction activities are proposed to
commence during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid
impacts to nesting birds. These surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist
no more than 14 days before construction begins during the early part of the
breeding season (February 1 through April 30) and no more than 30 days before
construction begins during the latter part of the breeding season (May 1 through
August 31). During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall observe if any
nesting birds are within the project area.
45. (MM BIO-1.2) If an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by
construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone to be
established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife. The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed during
project construction.
46. (MM BIO-1.3) The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the pre-
construction survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
47. (MM BIO-2.1) Bat Pre-activity Survey. Prior to any removal of trees 12 inches or
greater in diameter at 4.5 feet above grade, a pre-activity survey for roosting bats
will be conducted within the impact area. The survey will be conducted by a
qualified bat biologist. No activities that would result in disturbance of active bat
roosts will proceed prior to the completed survey. If no active roosts or maternity
colonies are found, then no further action is warranted. If a large maternity colony
or bat roost is presented, MM BIO-3.2 or 3.3 shall be implemented.
48. (MM BIO-2.2) Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts, if an occupied bat roost is
found in a tree that would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the
Project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the tree. If the roost is
unoccupied at the time of the survey, the City may choose to install bat exclusion
devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
16
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
of the proposed activity. If avoidance is not feasible, MM BIO-3.3 shall be
implemented.
49. (MM BIO-2.3) Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active non-
breeding pallid bat roost cannot be avoided, the individuals will be safely evicted
between August 1 and October 15th or between February 15 and March 15. Bats
may be evicted through exclusion after notifying the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Trees with roosts that need to be removed will first be disturbed at
dusk, just prior to removal that evening, to allows bats to escape the darker hours.
50. (MM BIO-3.1) Woodrat Pre-Construction Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for
woodrat nests shall be conducted within the impact footprint by a qualified
mammologist prior to the start of work. The surveys shall be conducted between
March 1st and October 31st, when woodrats are more active, and shall be conducted
no more than 30 days prior to the start of work. Woodrat nests detected during the
survey shall be mapped and one or more of the following measures shall be
implemented:
(A) Disturbance-free Woodrat Buffers. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round
residents. Therefore, avoidance mitigation is limited to redesigning the
project to avoid direct impacts on woodrat nests to the extent feasible.
Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer should be maintained between project
construction activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some
situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if in the opinion of a qualified
biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than the anticipated
as a result of Project activities.
(B) Relocation of Woodrat Nest Materials. If active woodrat nests are found
within the Project boundary and avoidance is not feasible, then the
woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests
and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the
woodrats. A qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest such that all
woodrats would seek refuge outside of the Project activity area.
Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be removed from the site, if feasible,
these materials would be piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub. The
spacing between relocated nests shall not be less than 100 feet, unless a
qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher
densities of nests.
51. (MM BIO-4.1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
final tree replacement plan to mitigate for proposed tree removals consistent with
Gilroy City Code Article XXXVIII (Landscaping) and Consolidated Landscape
Policy. The final plan shall identify the species, size, numbers, and locations for the
replacement trees. The tree replacement program will be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Manager and shall be implemented with construction of
the subdivision improvements..
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
17
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
52. (MM BIO-4.2) The project would also be required to implement tree preservation
measures before and during project construction for significant trees to be retained
(which as revised by the applicant shall include preservation of trees 46, 49, 52, 53,
54, 56, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79 and 80 as shown on Table 3 Trees Recommended for
Removal of the Preliminary Arborist Report). These measures shall be included on
all plans. Tree protection measures include the following Tree Preservation
Guidelines as established in the arborist report prepared for the project
environmental analysis:
Design Recommendations.
(A) The trees identified for preservation shall be established and plotted on all
plans (including but not limited to demolition, improvement, utility,
drainage, grading, landscape and irrigation plans), subject to review and
comment by the Consulting Arborist.
(B) Changes to plans shall be subject to review and comment by the
Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts.
(C) A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around each tree to be
preserved. Specific TPZ zones are specifically required for the following
trees located within the area of development:
Tree No. TPZ
#8 5’ North. Dripline in all
other directions.
#19 5’ North and West.
Dripline in all other
directions.
#31 5’ South. Dripline in all
other directions.
#36, 37, 38 10’ West. Dripline in all
other directions.
(D) TPZ’s for trees not listed above shall be established at the dripline or a 10-
foot radius, whichever is greater.
(E) Underground services and utilities, including subdrains, water and sewer,
shall be routed around the TPZ. Where encroachment cannot be avoided,
special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under
roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury.
(F) All temporary access roads and staging for materials, equipment, etc.,
shall remain outside of TPZ’s.
(G) Herbicides must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
(H) Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within
the TPZ.
Pre-construction Treatments
(I) Per the City’s Consolidated Landscape Policy, policies 6.2 and 6.3, the
developer shall hire a certified consulting arborist for the entire span of the
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
18
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
project. All arborist recommendations shall be drafted on the final
construction, grading, or landscape plans.
(J) The consulting arborist shall sign the final landscape plans authorizing this
plan is consistent with the recommendations made in the arborist report.
(K) The construction superintendent shall meet with the Consulting Arborist
before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.
(L) Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree Protection
Zone prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6’ high
chain link, mounted to steel posts firmly driven into the ground or on
stanchions fastened securely with rebar staples 12” deep, as required by
the City. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is
completed.
(M) Trees recommended for preservation may require clearance
pruning for construction. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified
Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133
and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices -- Tree
Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture.
(N) Structures and underground features to be removed within the Tree
Protection Zone shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from
outside the Tree Protection Zone. The consultant shall be on-site during
all operations within the Tree Protection Zone to monitor demolition
activity.
(O) Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the Tree Protection
Zone.
(P) All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as
California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds.
To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled
outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted
prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing
work buffers for active nests.
During Construction
(Q) Prior to beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity of trees to
be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site
to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree
protection measures.
(R) No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the
Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored
by the Consulting Arborist.
(S) Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to
encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the Consulting
Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting
exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting Arborist will identify
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
19
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
where root pruning is required.
(T) If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be
evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that
appropriate treatments can be applied.
(U) Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to
sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw.
(V) Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a
specific Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree or group of trees. Fences
are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be
relocated or removed without permission of the Consultant.
(W) Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside
fenced areas at all times.
(X) Prior to grading, pad preparation and excavation work trenching may
require root pruning outside of the TPZ. The Consulting Arborist shall
identify where root pruning is required prior to the start of work. Roots
shall be cleanly cut to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by
manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a
vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other
approved root pruning equipment.
(Y) No materials, chemicals, debris or equipment shall be dumped or stored
within the TPZ.
(Z) Any tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be
performed by a Certified Arborist.
Post Construction
(AA) Trees preserved and replacement trees shall be monitored
following construction of site improvements to assure the health of trees
post construction. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest
management, replanting and irrigation may be required.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
GENERAL
53. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of
Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details, and is subject to all
laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. Street improvements and the design of all
off-site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines, and all street sections shall
be in accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master
Plan for streets, as approved by the City of Gilroy’s Public Works Director/City
Engineer.
54. Until such time as the Improvements are accepted by City, Developer shall be
responsible for and bear the risk of loss to any of the Improvements constructed or
installed.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
20
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
55. Applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and local agencies
as required to construct the proposed improvements. A copy of these permits will
be provided prior to building permits.
56. Applicant shall obtain will serve and review letter from Recology confirming
serviceability and site accessibility of solid waste pickup. Contract Steven
Lucchetti, Operations Manager 408-842-3358.
57. All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and if necessary relocated as
approved by the City Engineer. No permanent structure is permitted within City
easements without the approval of the City of Gilroy.
58. Prior to building permit issuance, developer shall dedicate necessary easements for
the project development, including but not limited to 16-foot Public Service
easement along all the project proposed and future street frontages. The private
streets shall be designated as a Public Utility Easement (PUE), Water Line
Easement (WLE), and Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVAE).
59. Prior to the Final Map recordation applicant shall successfully obtain and record
necessary ingress/egress and public utility easement from adjacent property owner,
APN 808-19-020, for the extension of the Greenfield Drive to serve the proposed
development.
60. Improvement plan shall include all approved Conditions of Approval (COA) and
approved mitigation measures for the project on the 2nd sheet of the improvement
plan set.
61. Improvement plan set submittal shall include civil, landscape, electrical and joint
trench plan.
62. Public Improvement Plan title sheet shall include a table identifying ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for all existing and proposed improvements, including
but not limited to, streets, water, sewer, storm, street lights, landscaping and
stormwater treatment areas.
FEES
63. The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Payment of Street Tree and Storm
Development Impact Fees is required at first building permit issuance. Sewer,
Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees are due prior to
building occupancy.
64. At improvement plan submittal, Developer shall submit a $25,000 (Twenty Five
Thousand) initial deposit for plan check and processing. This deposit will be
credited/accounted for toward final plan check and inspection fee.
65. Prior to plan approval, developer shall submit a detailed project cost estimate with
appropriate contingency, subject to City Engineer approval.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
21
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
66. Prior to final plan approval, Developer shall pay 100% of the plan check and
inspection fees and other related fees that the property is subject to, enter into a
property improvement agreement, and provide payment and performance bonds.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
67. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit a grading plan and a
drainage study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The drainage study shall
analyze the existing and ultimate conditions and facilities, and the study shall
include all off-site tributary areas. The study and the design shall be in compliance
with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).
Existing offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity
shall not be altered by the development. The developer shall satisfy the conclusions
and recommendations of the approved drainage study and storm water management
plan.
68. All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements. If all or part of the construction occurs during the rainy
season, the developer shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Public Works
Director for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion control
devices and other techniques in accordance with Municipal Code § 27C to
minimize erosion. The developer shall have a QSP on site as necessary to ensure
implementation and maintenance of all erosion control measures. Specific
measures to control sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential
construction contamination sediment runoff, construction pollution and other
potential construction contamination shall be addressed through the Erosion Control
Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall
supplement the Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These
documents shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A
Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board,
with a copy provided to the Engineering Division before a grading permit will be
issued. WDID# shall be provided prior to the commencement or work.
69. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved
project’s geotechnical report that was prepared for the design of the project and
shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Site preparation and
cut/fill construction shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a
licensed soils or geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the City of
Gilroy for each phase of construction, stating that all site preparation and cut/fill
construction were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project’s
geotechnical report. This shall be subject to review and approval by the
Engineering Division. The developer shall add this condition to the general notes on
the grading plan.
70. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant’s soils engineer shall review the
final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining
walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
22
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
The applicant’s soils engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either
by letter or by signing the plans.
TRANSPORTATION
71. Any work in the public right-of-way shall require a traffic control plan prepared by
a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans. Traffic
Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the latest
edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Traffic
Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the
public right of way.
72. At first plan submittal developer shall model all Emergency Vehicle circulation
movements, as separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the
city Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn Swept analysis software,
all turning and street circulation movements.
73. At first plan submittal developer shall model all Solid Waste Vehicle circulation
movements, as separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the
city Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn Swept analysis software,
all turning and street circulation movements.
74. Developer shall submit final photometric plans as part of Improvement plans for
review and approval.
75. Developer shall install all joint trench to have (4) dedicated 11/2” SCH 80 PVC
conduit for City Fiber Optic need in a quad duct arrangement along public Collector
and Arterial streets. Quad duct shall be per City STD EL-11.
76. Developer shall design driveway grades to keep a standard design vehicle from
dragging or “bottoming out” on the street or driveway and to keep water collected
in the street from flowing onto the lots. The details of such design shall be provided
at improvement plan phase and shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Transportation Engineer.
77. The developer shall not obstruct the noted sight distance areas. Overall cumulative
height of the grading, landscaping & signs as determined by sight distance shall not
exceed 2 feet when measured from street elevation.
78. Project shall connect to the existing 12-foot Class-1 Bike Path (trail) at the easterly
boundary of the project by lot 14.
FINAL MAP
79. The Final Tract Map shall be presented to the City Council for review and action.
The City Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days after the
Final Map is deemed technically correct, and Subdivision Improvement Plans with
supporting documents, reports and agreements are approved by the City. Executed
Final Map shall be returned to the City Public Works Department if Final Map has
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
23
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
not been filed in the County Recorder’s Office within ninety (90) days from the
date of City Council’s approval.
80. The tentative map and all final maps shall designate all common lots and easements
as lettered lots or lettered easements. The Final map should be clear on the limits of
Public vs. Private (HOA) responsibilities. The Final map should also be clear of the
HOA vs. Homeowners responsibilities.
81. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall establish a homeowner association.
The homeowner association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
landscaping, walls, private streetlights, private utilities, private streets, and common
areas, and shall have assessment power. HOA shall be responsible maintenance
of the Storm Water Control treatment areas and the CC&R’s shall describe how
the stormwater BMPs associated with privately owned improvements and
landscaping shall be maintained by the association. This information shall be
clearly included in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R) and
recorded documents. The CC&R document shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
82. Uvas Creek Parcel A. Prior to or concurrent with final map approval, Developer
shall dedicate Parcel A for the use of the public. Developer shall complete all
improvements, including but not limited to the proposed Bicycle Trail and its
extension to the adjacent properties. Property Homeowner’s Association shall take
full responsibility for management and maintenance of the proposed improvements
within Parcel A. Seasonal vegetation management shall be scheduled to occur at the
end of the rainy season and consistent with the annual weed abatement resolution.
The HOA shall implement any vegetation management within Parcel A and Fuel
Transition Zones at the beginning of weed abatement season. This language shall
be included in the HOA conditions, covenants and restrictions.
83. The bicycle trail alignment within Parcel A shall avoid identified wetland areas.
84. The City shall in good faith support efforts by Developer to facilitate dedication of
the open space parcel to a suitable non-City public agency as a means of ensuring
long term preservation and management of the open space parcel. This shall be
without cost or liability to the City. In the absence of such dedication, the Home
Owners Association shall have the responsibility for the long-term preservation and
management of such area.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
85. Prior to building permit issuance, developer shall execute a public improvement
agreement and post Payment and Performance bonds each for 100% of cost for
improvement with the City that shall secure the construction of the public
improvements. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement.
86. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for
removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
24
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction
Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
87. The developer shall obtain all local and state permits necessary for all project onsite
and offsite construction.
88. Prior to any work within public right of way or City easement, the developer shall
obtain an encroachment permit from the City.
WATER QUALITY
89. Proposed development shall comply with state mandated regional permits for both
pre-construction and post-construction storm water quality requirements per chapter
27D of the Gilroy Municipal Code, and is subject to, but not limited to, the
following:
a. At grading permit phase, submit a final design Stormwater Management Plan and
final signed Performance Requirement Certifications specified in the City of
Gilroy Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).
b. At improvement plan phase, confirm that the bioretention basin locations shown
on the Stormwater Control Plan match with the locations shown on the
Landscape Plans.
c. Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer of the site shall enter into a
formal written Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with
the City.
i. The City shall record this agreement against the property or properties
involved and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by
the storm water management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater
BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public
Works Engineering.
ii. This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP
maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its
original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of the
proposed modification or maintenance activity.
iii. This Agreement shall also provide that in the event that maintenance
or repair is neglected, or the storm water management facility becomes a
danger to public health or safety, the city shall have the authority to perform
maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner.
iv. All on-site storm water management facilities shall be operated and
maintained in good condition and promptly repaired/replaced by the property
owner(s) or other legal entity approved by the City.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
25
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
v. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in
accordance with City-approved plans.
vi. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance schedule for the
life of any storm water management facility and shall describe the
maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and who shall
perform the maintenance. This maintenance schedule shall be included with
the approved Stormwater Runoff Management Plan.
d. Stormwater BMP Inspections will be required for this project and shall
adhere to the following:
i. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all storm water
management facilities inspected for condition and function by a
knowledgeable third party.
ii. Unless otherwise required by the City Engineer or designee, storm
water facility inspections shall be done at least twice per year, once in Fall, in
preparation for the wet season, and once in Winter. Written records shall be
kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following
information:
1. Site address;
2. Date and time of inspection;
3. Name of the person conducting the inspection;
4. List of storm water facilities inspected;
5. Condition of each storm water facility inspected;
6. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and
7. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection.
e. Upon completion of each inspection, an inspection report shall be
submitted to Public Works Engineering no later than October 1st for the Fall
report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report.
f. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the developer
shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit and provide evidence of filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State
Water Resources Control Board.
90. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm
water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
26
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations or a project stop order.
UTILITIES
91. All service to the development shall be an "underground service" designed and
installed in accordance with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, AT&T (phone)
Company and local cable company regulations. Transformers and switch gear
cabinets shall be placed underground unless otherwise approved by the Planning
Director and the City Engineer. Underground utility plans must be submitted prior
to installation.
92. Improvement plans are required for all on-site and off-site improvements. The
following items will need to be completed prior to first building permit submittal:
a) The Developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground
electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication conduits and
cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building
utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction
structures as a part of the Improvement Plan su bmittals for the project. Show
preferred and alternative locations for all utility vaults and boxes if project has not
obtained PG&E approval. A licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer shall sign the
composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans. (All dry utilities shall be
placed underground).
b) The Developer shall negotiate right-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and
other utilities subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division and
the utility companies.
c) Will Serve Letter” from each utility company for the subdivision shall be supplied
to the City.
93. A note shall be placed on the joint trench composite plans which states that the plan
agrees with City Codes and Standards and that no underground utility conflict
exists. The Joint trench consultant shall provide the City a separate “project utility
composite plan” showing all Civil, Landscape, electrical, and joint trench
information to confirm that there are no conflicts with joint trench plan utilities.
Joint Trench Shall not be conceptual.
94. Storm and sewer lines in private areas shall be privately owned and maintained by
the HOA.
95. Prior to any construction of the dry utilities in the field, the following will need to
be supplied to the City:
a) A professional engineer- original electrical plan.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
27
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
b) A letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan
conforms to City codes and Standards, and to the approved subdivision
improvement plans.
96. Sanitary sewer laterals and/or water meters located in driveways shall have traffic
rated boxes and lids.
97. The Developer/Contractor shall make accessible any or all City utilities as directed
by the Public Works Director.
98. All mainline storm drain piping shall have a minimum diameter of 18 inches and
the lateral connections shall have a minimum diameter of 15 inches.
WATER CONSERVATION
99. Landscape design shall comply with the State Water Efficient Landscape
requirements. Prior to building permit issuance complete landscape documentation
package shall be submitted along with landscape plan for review and approval of
the City Engineer; and prior to final/occupancy permit issuance, project Landscape
Architect shall certify compliance with the State requirements and submit a
Certificate of Completion by the owner.
100. The project shall fully comply with the measures required by the City’s Water
Supply Shortage Regulations Ordinance (Gilroy City Code, Chapter 27, Article VI),
and subsequent amendments to meet the requirements imposed by the State of
California’s Water Board. This ordinance established permanent voluntary water
saving measures and temporary conservation standards.
101. Recycled water shall be used for construction water, where available, as determined
by the Public Works Director. Recycled water shall be billed at the municipal
industrial rate based on the current Santa Clara Valley Water District’s municipal
industrial rate.
WATER
102. The proposed 8” DIP water main within the proposed subdivision shall be
connected to the existing water main line on Riverview Circle to provide a looping
water system with two points of connection.
103. All construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and billed at the current
hydrant meter rate.
104. Where recycled water is not available, as determined by the Public Works Director,
potable water shall be used. All City potable water will be billed based on the City’s
comprehensive fee schedule under the Portable Fire hydrant meter rate.
105. The Developer shall perform field verification testing of the water system and will
modify any part of the systems that does not perform to the standards established by
the City.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
28
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
CONSTRUCTION BMP
106. It is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that all dirt tracked into the
public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other
construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains.
107. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and
building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by
landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be
present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to
blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the City, or a
minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure
proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public
streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as
often as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, or at least once a day.
Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to
minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this
construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the
workweek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Demolition or
earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed
25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
CONSTRUCTION
108. If the project has excess fill or cut that will be off-hauled to a site or on-hauled from
a site within the city limits of Gilroy, an additional permit is required. This
statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
109. The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to Chapter 8 of
the Caltrans Construction Manual. The subdivider shall require the soils engineer to
daily submit all testing and sampling and reports to the City Engineer.
110. Prior to Final Map approval, the Developer/Applicant shall submit a proposed
construction phasing and schedule for approval by the City Engineer. Schedule
format shall be Microsoft Project, and shall identify the scheduled critical path for
the installation of improvements. The schedule shall be updated weekly.
111. At least one week prior to commencement of work, the Developer shall post at the
site and mail to the Engineering Division and to owners of property within (300')
three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the project site a notice that
construction work will commence on or around the stated date. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of
responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The
list shall be current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate
corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals
responsible for dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the
notice.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
29
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
112. Prior to final inspections, all pertinent conditions of approval and all improvements
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Engineer.
113. All work shown on the improvement plans shall be inspected. Uninspected work
shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Director.
114. All public improvements, including the complete installation of all improvements
relative to streets, fencing, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water system,
underground utilities, etc., shall be completed and attested to by the City Engineer
before approval of occupancy of any unit. Where facilities of other agencies are
involved, such installation shall be verified as having been completed and accepted
by those agencies.
115. Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Mondays through Fridays, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for general construction
activity. No work shall be done on Sundays and City Holidays. The Public Works
Director may apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to
accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school
commute routes.
116. The City shall be notified at least two (2) working days prior to the start of any
construction work and at that time the contractor shall provide a project schedule
and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list.
CONSTRUCTION PARKING
117. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten
thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which
abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Public Works
Director (§ 15.40.070).
MONUMENTS
118. All monuments shall be set per the recorded final map. A certificate letter by the
Surveyor or Engineer will be provided to the City Engineer prior to project
acceptance.
ACCEPTANCE
119. Certification of grades and compaction is required prior to Building Permit final.
This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
120. Until such time as all improvements required are fully completed and accepted by
City, Developer will be responsible for the care maintenance of and any damage to
such improvements. City shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be
liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause,
happening or occurring to the work or Improvements required for this project prior
to the completion and acceptance of the work or Improvements. All such risks shall
be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
30
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
121. The developer shall submit as-built plans for civil, landscape, electrical, joint
trench.
122. The developer shall submit AutoCAD files each consultant’s composite basemap
linework showing all public and private improvements and utility layouts. Utility
layers shall be clearly labeled to identify private and public status and separate pen
color designated.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
123. TM 16-02 Conditions shall be included on off-site improvement plans as "Fire
Department Notes." Prior to street completion, the Fire Marshal shall be contacted
and a fire clearance for off-site improvements be scheduled. No building permits
will be issued without a Fire –Off-Site Improvement Inspection and Fire Flow Test
administered by the Fire Marshal.
124. Open Spaces, including parcel A (between residential lots and the trail) and parcel
C, shall have vegetation management to remove dead plants and debris, and to
remove, disc or mow weeds during weed abatement season from April to November
of each year. Trees in this area shall be limbed up 6’ off the ground. In HOA
managed areas the HOA shall be responsible. For privately owned property it shall
be performed by the property owner.
125. Fire Hydrants shall be able to flow 1500 gpm with a 20 psi residual pressure shall
be spaced every 300 ft., and within 150 ft. of any building. Blue reflectors shall be
adhered to the road surface in front of each hydrant. Improvement plan shall
provide Fire Hydrants per the City Standard. Hydrants shall be installed prior to
commencement of construction with combustible materials. A hydrant flow test
shall be performed by Fire Marshal prior to possession by the water department.
126. All homes shall be provided with water laterals and meters sized to allow for a
residential NFPA 13d fire sprinkler system. Off-site improvement plan shall
provide all homes shall be provided with 1.5 inch water laterals and 1” meters sized
to allow for a residential NFPA 13d fire sprinkler system. Plot plans for tract homes
shall specify that the house is to be provided with fire sprinklers.
127. Roadways shall provide a minimum 20 feet of unobstructed travel. Vertical
clearance of not less than 13.5 ft. shall be provided. Turning radius shall not be less
than 32’ inside and 40’ outside. Parking restrictions as follows: For road widths less
than 28 ft., no parking on either side, road width less than 36 ft., no parking on one
side, road width at or over 36 ft., parking not restricted.
128. Where parking is restricted, it shall be posted with signs for No Parking-Fire Lane
and curbs shall be painted red. Include details in Off-Site improvement plans.
129. Final Map shall include a paragraph that reads: “Red curbing and signage shall be
maintained by the Home Owners Association. A parking enforcement shall be
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
31
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
implemented by the Homeowners Association and lots A and C subject to
vegetation management by the HOA.”
130. All individual lots (lots 1, 2, 9 – 14) that border open space must have non-
combustible perimeter fences, as well as maintain a minimum 30 foot vegetation
zone within their respective lots.
131. The homeowners association will be responsible for vegetation management for
parcels A, B, and C.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Resolution TM1602 - Final Revised (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
1
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECELARATION
AND APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP TM 16-02, CREATING 14
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO COMMON PARCELS,
ONE PUBLIC PARK PARCEL, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY
TERMINUS OF GREENFIELD DRIVE AND SOUTH OF UVAS
CREEK, APN 808-20-008, FILED BY JAMES SUNER, 2201
COLUMBINE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020.
WHEREAS, James Suner submitted an application requesting tentative map
approval to subdivide an 8.36 acre site into 14 single-family lots, two common lots
containing private roadways and stormwater detention, a 3.7 acre public park parcel to be
dedicated as an extension of Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space, and associated public
and private improvements within the R1 single-family zone district; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located at the northern end of Greenfield
Drive, south of Uvas Creek, east of Las Animas Elementary School/Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan Area development, and east of Villagio residential development (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 808-20-008); and
WHEREAS, the tentative map application was referred to various public utility
companies and City departments, including the Technical Advisory Committee for
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
TM 16-02 on June 7, 2016, at which public hearing the Planning Commission considered
the proposed project, staff report, public comments and testimony, and all other
documentation or other evidence received on the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project substantially
conforms to the intent of the Gilroy General Plan and elements thereof, the Gilroy City
Code, and all applicable standards and criteria, and on voted 6-0 (1 absence) to
recommend the project to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) was completed for the
project and made available for a 30-day public review period on July 27, 2018, in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and
mitigation measures have been identified sufficient to address the environmental effects
of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan has been prepared,
consistent with the MND; and
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
2
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 15,
2018, and considered the public testimony, the Planning Commission recommendation,
the City Council Staff Report, and all other documentation related to application TM 16-
02; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the matter to November 5, 2018, with
direction given to staff to meet with the applicant, and submit a resolution with revised
conditions of approval reflecting recommendations of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, using its independent judgement, and analysis based on deliberation
and consideration of the materials presented at the public hearings, including any public
testimony received, the City Council concludes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for TM 16-02 adequately
assesses all potential environmental impacts of the project, mitigating potential impacts to
a less than significant level, and that the project as proposed and conditioned would
conforms to the City's General Plan and elements thereof, the Gilroy City Code and all
applicable standards and criteria. Further, the City of Gilroy Community Development
Department is the custodian for all documents pertaining to the FMND, including its
adoption, and the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of
Gilroy does hereby make findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act,
the Gilroy City Code and the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 and take action to
adopt the Mitigating Negative Declaration and approving TM 16-02, as follows:
SECTION I – CEQA Findings
1. Based upon the Record, the submissions by the Project Sponsor(s), the
information in the staff report and provided from other interested parties, the
oral testimony presented at this public hearing, and all other written materials
submitted by all parties, the City Council hereby finds that the contents of
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the procedures through which the
MND was prepared, publicized, and reviewed complied with the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000
et seq.) (CEQA). 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.
(the “CEQA Guidelines”).
2. The City Council further finds that the MND is adequate, accurate and
objective, reflected the independent analysis and judgment of the City
Council, and that the summary of comments and responses contained no
significant revisions to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND), and adopts the MND for the Project in compliance with CEQA.
3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the IS/MND and the record as
a whole and finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment with the adoption of the
mitigation measures contained in the mitigation monitoring and reporting
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
3
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
program (MMRP) to avoid potentially significant environmental effects
associated with the Project, and hereby adopts the MND.
4. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the project, incorporated herein. All required mitigation measures
identified in the IS/MND and contained in the MMRP are included as
conditions of approval.
5. The City Council further finds that since the MND was finalized, there have
been no substantial project changes and no substantial changes in project
circumstances that would require major revisions to the MND due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the
severity of previously identified significant impacts, and there is no new
information of substantial importance that would change the conclusions set
forth in the MND.
SECTION II – Tentative Map Findings
1. The subdivision request TM 16-02, including the design and improvement of
the subdivision, would be substantially consistent with all applicable City of
Gilroy General Plan goals, objectives, policies and programs, including the
low density residential land use designation given that the project, as proposed
and conditioned, would:
a. Promote infill residential development in an area designated for this type
of use and that would be compatible with the existing adjacent single-
family residential neighborhoods, near parks and schools, and would
protect natural resources, which would be consistent with the Strategic
Direction Chapter;
b. Avoid encroachment into open space areas and provides a net density of 3
units per acre within remaining buildable areas of the site, after dedication
of 3.7 acres of land for public park and open space, which would be
substantially consistent with Community Design Chapter Policies 1.01,
1.05, 1.09;
c. Dedicate public land for the Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space, which
would include extension of planned bicycle trails (consistent with the
adopted 1992 Uvas Creek Park Preserve Plan, the 2002 Park & Recreation
System Master Plan and the 2005 Gilroy Trails Master Plan), which would
be in substantial compliance with Public Facilities and Services Chapter
policies 16.02, 16.04, 16.05, 16.12, and 16.14; and
d. Avoid and protect sensitive open space habitat along Uvas Creek by
providing a setback of 150 feet from top of creek bank, satisfying the
minimum setback of 100 feet from top of bank and 35 feet setback from
the edge of riparian habitat to the parcels, consistent with Community
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
4
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
Resources Chapter policies 20.01, 20.02, 20.03, 20.06, 20.07, 20.08 and
Action 20.B.
e. The site is not covered by a specific plan document, thus no findings for
consistency are required for this criteria to comply with the State
Subdivision Map Act. However, right of way access to the site would be
extended through a small corner of City open space property within the U
Ranch Specific Plan area. This acquisition is minimal and would not
materially impact the value, use or access for this existing open space
amenity.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed development type and density
given that the site contains 4.66 acres of building area upland from portions of
the property within the Uvas Creek Park Preserve riparian corridor open
space, which can accommodate a net density of 3 units per acre. Further, all
proposed residential lots would be located upland of the flood plain along
Uvas Creek, grading would be implemented in accordance with standard
engineering practices and there are no unusual soils conditions associated with
the site that would preclude use of fill for development, and public utilities
and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve TM 16-01 are in
close proximity, at the existing terminus of Greenfield Drive.
3. TM 16-01 is consistent with the Gilroy City Code Zoning Ordinance
including the R1 District Standards, the Subdivision and Land Development
Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and all City ordinances, policies and
standards in effect as of the date the application was accepted as complete for
processing on July 12, 2017, given that the development promotes single-
family residential development with minimum 6,600 square foot lots sizes,
improvements would comply with adopted City Engineering Standards and
Specifications for minimum 36 foot wide minimum paved private roadway
width, public utility easements, street trees, lighting, utility infrastructure,
drainage and stormwater management, and flood control, and interim
residential dwelling unit allocations were been granted for the project on May
17, 2016 and have not expired .
4. The subdivision design and improvements would not result in environmental
damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as identified in the MND,
given that all significant environmental impacts associated with the project
have been identified and would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
5. The design of the applicant agrees with the necessity of and accepts all
elements, requirements, and conditions of this resolution as being a reasonable
manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work, visit
or live in this subdivision in particular.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
5
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
6. The subdivision design and improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at larger for access through or use of the property
within the proposed subdivision as follows:
a. As proposed an easement for Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be
preserved and maintained within the proposed Parcel A dedication.
b. As proposed and conditioned, the development would complete public
trails through the site, connect the trails with the proposed development
and adjacent developments to the east and west.
c. As conditioned, would provide public access through the development
along the proposed private roadway and sidewalks.
d. As conditioned, the developer would acquire access across 0.2 acres of
land owned by the City, which is part of by Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan area as public open space, for additional road right of way as
necessary to extend Greenfield Drive into the property. This acquisition
for roadway access is minimal and necessary to provide suitable access for
development of the site consistent with the General Plan, and would not
conflict with nor materially diminish the use these affected public open
space lands.
7. The development is adjacent to wildlife vegetation and requires additional
findings to be made pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act for properties within
wildland urban interface areas. As conditioned by the Fire Department, the
findings for approval of development in wildland urban interface areas would
be satisfied as follows:
a. The project would be required to comply with vegetation management
requirements for property within potential fire hazard areas. This would
include ongoing specific vegetation management practices that would be
enforced by the City and made the responsibility of the property owners
and homeowners association for private open space vegetation of Lots 9-
14, and the City for the Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space. Based on
the proposed plans and conditions, the project would be consistent with
the fire safety regulations adopted by the State and City Fire Department
pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291.
b. Adequate fire suppression services would be available to the area based on
the provision of adequate access roads and fire hydrants that would be
installed to serve the project.
c. Ingress and egress is provided for the subdivision that meets minimum
standards for 20 foot wide paved roadway, grades not exceeding 15
percent, and adequate turning radius provided for maneuverability through
the development.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
6
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
8. As proposed and conditioned, the project would comply with all ordinances,
policies and standards in effect as of June 2017 (when the project application
was accepted as complete, as well as any standards adopted by the state for
the purpose of protecting public health and safety.
SECTION II - Actions
1. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for TM 16-02
Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision project.
2. The City Council hereby approves TM 16-02, subject to the conditions of
approval set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a
regular meeting duly held on the 15th day of OctoberNovember, 2018, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
7
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TM 16-02
Note: The following abbreviations identify the City department or division responsible
for determining compliance with these conditions. The first group listed has
responsibility for compliance at plan check, the second confirms compliance with
the condition at final inspection, prior to final occupancy or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, or as specified in the condition. If only one group is
identified, they have responsibilities from initial review through compliance
verification. An internal condition reference number is located at the end of each
condition (e.g. G-1 or MND-S2).
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS
BL Building Division/Inspectors PK Parks/Landscape Design
CA City Attorney PL Planning Division
CC Chemical Control Agency PW Public Works/Engineering
FP Fire Prevention TR Traffic Division
PD Police Department WW Wastewater/Source Control
GENERAL PROJECT CONDITIONS
1. Approved Plans. Approval of Tentative Map TM16-02 is granted for approved
plans stamped as “Approved on October 15November 5, 2018” (“the plans”) on
file with the Planning Division. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans,
except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or
modification to the plans shall be considered by the Community Development
Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall
conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City
Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. (PL, G-1)
2. Developer. Developer means permit applicant, property owner, operator, permittee,
lessee, and/or tenants using the space(s) for the intended use(s). Developer shall
comply with project conditions for the life of the project. (CA, G-2)
3. Indemnification Agreement. Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval,
at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees
and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the
City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to
challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any
condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken,
including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the
approval process. (CA, G-3)
4. Acceptance of Conditions. Failure to appeal this decision in a timely manner, or
commencement of any activity related to the project, in understood to clarify
Developer’s acceptance of all conditions and obligations imposed by this permit
and waiving any challenge to the validity of the conditions and obligations stated
herein. (CA, G4)
5. Notice of Land Use Restriction. Developer shall complete the “Notice of Land
Use Restrictions and Conditions” form, using the form provided by the City, for
recording with the Santa Clara County Recorder. Before the City issues building
permits, or approves recordation of a Final Map, Developer shall submit the
original completed, signed and notarized document to the Community Development
Director or designee. (PL, G-9)
6. Water Limitations Acknowledgement. Developer acknowledges that because of
water limitations placed on the City by its water providers, approval of this permit
does not guarantee that the city will issue building permits. Issuance of building
permits may be delayed and subject to implementation and/or compliance with
mandated water conservation or allocation plans. (PL/PW, G-10)
7.5. Covenants and Restrictions. Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs)
applicable to the project property shall be consistent with the terms of this permit
and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or
this permit, the City Code or this permit shall prevail. (PL/CA, G-11)
8.6. Enforcement Action. If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the
conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject revocation
or other appropriate enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs
associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or
tenant. (CA, G-7)
9.7. Occupancy Restriction. Prior to occupancy of residential units and/or acceptance
of the subdivision tract, Developer shall complete all required offsite and onsite
improvements related to the project, including structures, paving, and landscaping,
unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development Director, or stated in
these conditions. (BL, G-8)
10.8. Expiration. The tentative map shall have an initial expiration period of twenty-four
(24) months from the approval date if the final map is not approved prior to the
initial expiration date of October 1November 5, 2020, subject to extensions of
time that may granted as provided pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act. (PL,
G-12)
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
9
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
11.9. Extension Requests. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit
expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written
application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests
may be considered pursuant to the City Code. Should the project approvals expire,
allocations granted for 14 residential units pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section
30.50.60 shall likewise expire. (PL, G-5)
PLANNING DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS
12.10. Subsequent Permits. Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating
any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including but
not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas, model home
sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications.
Developer shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or
issuance, as applicable. (PL/BL, PL-1)
13.11. Architectural and Site Review. Architectural and Site Review shall be obtained
for development of four or more residential parcels within the project, pursuant to
Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.41(a)(5).
14.12. Building Plan Details. Developer plans for building permit applications for
future residences shall identify all exterior building materials and colors, including
product and finish manufacturer name, color name and number, and surface finish
type (e.g. stucco with sand finish, plaster with smooth finish) to be used in
construction, subject to review for compliance with Zoning standards. This shall
include review and requirement for compliance with the site design requirements of
Gilroy City Code Section 30.5.50 which specifies that new residences shall have at
least 3 of the following 5 design elements to differentiate from residences on
adjacent lots on the same street frontage(PL, PL-2):
(A) Floor plan.
(B) Front Elevation.
(C) Roof Design.
(D) Exterior Materials.
(E) Reversed floor plan.
15.13. Conditions on Plan Sets. Developer shall submit plans that include, on all sets, a
reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision-
maker. (PL, PL-3)
16.14. Landscape and Lighting. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Developer shall
submit a combined final landscape and lighting plan improvement plans to verify
location of street trees and street light standards shall not conflict with drainage
plans, landscape plans, tree locations, parking spaces, or any other such land use
concerns. (PL, PL-6)
17.15. Habitat Conservation Permit. Concurrent with or prior to an application for a
grading permit, Developer shall apply for a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan permit
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
10
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
from the City of Gilroy. The grading permit will be issued only after payment of
assessed fees and approval of the Habitat Plan permit. (PL, PL-9)
18.16. Habitat Conservation Fee Payment. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,
Developer shall present to the Community Development Director or designee, a
receipt issued by Santa Clara County for full payment of the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan fees for associated with the proposed development. Such receipt shall
be dated within six (6) months of the grading permit issuance date, or the fee
amount may be reassessed and difference collected at the time of grading permit
issuance. (PL, PL-10)
19.17. Construction Noise. To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise,
Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and
construction plans issued for the subject site (PL/BL, PL-11)
“During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall
implement the following measures at the construction site:
(A) Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and
on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited
on Sundays and City-observed holidays;
(B) Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project
area;
(C) Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing
the project site;
(D) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
(E) Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
(F) Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists; and
(G) Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler,
etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the
problem.”
20.18. Air Quality. To minimize potential construction-related impacts to air quality,
Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and
construction plans issued for the project site (PL/BL, PL-12):
“During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall
implement the following basic control measures at the construction site:
(A) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day;
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
11
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
(B) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite
shall be covered;
(C) All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited;
(D) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles
per hour;
(E) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used;
(F) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points;
(G) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
(H) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.”
21.19. Archaeological Resources. In the event of an accidental discovery of
archaeological resources during grading or construction activities, Developer shall
include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans
issued for the project site (BL/PL, PL-13):
“If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving,
grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters
(165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring
professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If
a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified
immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at
Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is
determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated
by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.”
22.20. Cultural Resources. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any
human remains, Developer shall include the following language in all grading, site
work, and construction plans (BL/PL, PL-14):
“If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction
activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the
coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
12
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native
American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the
person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the
deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating
or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his
authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is
unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24
hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to
make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative
rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner.”
23.21. Equipment Screening. Prior to issuance of permits, Developer shall provide
screening of all mechanical equipment, post indicator valves, backflow prevention
devices, etc., shown on final improvement plans. All ground mounted utility
appurtenances such as transformers shall not be visible from any public right-of-
way and shall be adequately screened through the use or combination of low
concrete or masonry walls, berms, and landscaping. (PL, PL-17)
24.22. Any masonry or concrete walls used for screening purposes shall comply with
front and street side yard height limits and be setback from property lines or back of
sidewalks at least 3-feet in order to accommodate landscaping along the exterior
facing elevation. (PL-22)
25.23. Backflow preventers shall be painted dark green, except the fire connection which
shall be painted yellow. Interior lot lines may be delineated by fencing, constructed
of wood material. (PL-17)
26.24. The final placement and design of the equipment and screening for the items in
the above conditions 23, 24 and 25, shall be to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee.
27.25. Homeowners Association. Developer shall establish a Homeowners’ Association
(HOA) for the development. The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and
enforcement of parking, private streets, common landscaping, recreation and other
interior areas held in common by the HOA. Such responsibilities shall be provided
within the CC&Rs for the development. (PL, PL-27)
28.26. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the CC&R’s shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval to confirm the items required in these conditions of
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
13
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
approval have been satisfied; subject to review by the Community Development
Director, City Engineer and City Attorney.
PLANNING LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS
29. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, Developer shall submit an arborist
report prepared by an ISA certified and licensed arborist that identifies the existing
trees to be saved, trees to be removed, and mitigation tree planting, with
recommendations and details of the arborist for such work shown on grading plans
and implemented during grading. (PL, PL-40)
30.27. Prior to issuance grading building permits for the project, Developer shall submit
a Landscape and Irrigation Plan for common areas and the retaining walls and
private open space behind lots 9 through 14, with completed Landscape
Documentation Package, including a soil analysis/management report along with
appropriate application review fees, to the Community Development Department,
including required documentation for compliance verification, and obtain approval
of such plans. Landscaping plans shall include details for tree mitigation and
include planting to along the common retaining wall system supporting the Lots 9-
14 building pads. (PL, PL-43)
31.28. As part of the Landscape Plan submittal, Developer shall not include any invasive
plant species, such as those listed by the California Invasive Plant Council. (PL, PL-
44)
32.29. As part of the Landscape Plan submittal, Developer shall clarify a minimum three
(3) inch layer of mulch to be applied on all exposed soil surfaces, as required by the
State MWELO. (PL, PL-45)
33.30. Prior to issuance of building permitsWith the final landscape plan submittal,
Developer shall (as part of the irrigation system) include sensors that suspend or
alter irrigation operation during unfavorable weather conditions (e.g. automatic rain
shut-off devices). (PL, PL-42)
34.31. Prior to occupancy or and/or final tract acceptance, Developer shall submit a
signed Certificate of Completion, along with all necessary supporting
documentation and payment to the Community Development Department, for
compliance verification of the landscape installation. Developer shall complete
installation of all landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans.
(PL-47, PL-48)
35.32. Developer is required under MWELO to provide a copy of the approved
Certificate of Completion to the property owner or his or her designee. Prior to
completion of each build-out phase of development, Developer shall provide the
Community Development Director or designee a summary of each lot in that phase
and timing of compliance with this requirement. (PL, PL-49)
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
14
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
36.33. For the life of the project, Developer and/or HOA hall maintain common
landscaping and irrigation improvements in accordance with the approved plans,
except as otherwise permitted or required by law. Significant changes to the
number, placement, and selection of plant species may require a modification to this
approval, to be determined by the Community Development Director or designee.
(PL, PL-50)
PLANNING DIVISION SPECIAL CONDITIONS
37.34. Off-site improvements. Developer shall comply with the requirements of the
Engineering Division for all off-site right of way improvements, which includes
acquiring the right of way access to connect Greenfield Drive with the project
roadway.
38.35. Public/Private Roadway Demarcation. The improvement plans shall provide a
distinctive pavement treatment to demarcate the transition from public to private
roadway, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and City Engineer.
39.36. The Building Envelopes that are shown on the tentative map for Lots 1 and 2, and
Lots 9 thru 14. The final map shall include restrictions establishing building
envelopes for the designated development areas for the two estate sized Lot 1 and
Lot 2 located at the entry to the development and the six lots (Lot 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14) that abut the Uvas Creek preserve. The final map shall specify the restrictions,
obligations and limitations of use outside of the building envelopes, which shall
generally be established and maintained for protection of significant mature trees
and natural landscape vegetation outside of the building envelopes shall not be
required.
40.37. Private Open Space Restrictions for Lots 9 thru 14. The area extending from
the top of the uppermost retaining wall to the rear and side property lines of Lot 9
through Lot 14, which back up to the Uvas Creek preserve, shall be designated on
the final map as protected private open space.restricted as follows: No structures,
ornamental landscaping, private garden areas or other , accessory structures, uses
grading, decks, pools, or hardscape improvements shall be permitted within the
private open areas. The private open space shall be maintained with approved native
or compatible landscaping, and open view fencing only, which is complementary
and compatible with the adjacent public open space vegetation. Any modification
shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Manager Community
Development Director or designee for compliance with these conditions and Gilroy
City Code.
41.38. Private Open Space View Fencing Requirement for Lots 9 thru 14). The
Developer shall install open view fencing along the rear of building envelopes (on
top of the uppermost retaining wall) and along the perimeter of the private open
space areas of Lots 9 through Lot 14. Internal boundary fencing shall not be
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
15
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
allowed between lots within the private open space area, in order to maintain
natural landscape and access to this area for maintenance. The open view fencing
details shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division with
grading permits or improvement plans. Fencing shall be installed prior to
occupancy of residences on these lots. The open view fencing restrictions shall be
included in the project CC&R’s. Any modification to this requirement shall be
subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or
designee and the Public Works Director for compliance with these conditions and
Gilroy City Code.
42. Private Open Space Enforcement. The homeowners association shall be
responsible for enforcing limitations on use and improvement within the designated
private open space yard areas on Lots 9 through 14. This shall include enforcing
requirement for maintenance of the trees and natural landscape vegetation required
for this area, structural stability of the retaining walls, and fencing.
43.39. Public Access Easement. Public access easements shall be granted for sidewalks
and roadways through the development. The development shall not be permitted to
install gates to restrict entry through the development.
44.40. Common Improvements. Developer shall complete all required common
landscaping, street trees, lighting and tree mitigation prior to issuance of building
permits for lots within the development. A phasing schedule may be submitted for
approval by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of grading permits. All
improvements must be completed before the final building permit is issued for the
last lot and prior to acceptance of the Tract map.
45.41. Common Retaining Wall Design. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Should
the retaining wall be used, plans shall indicate a minimum grade separation of five
feet (5’) that shall be maintained between the two maximum five-foot (5’) tall
retaining walls that are proposed to support the fill and building envelopes of lots 9
through 14. This area shall be planted with landscaping designed to prevent
climbing and soften the appearance of the wall. Similar landscaping shall be
included along the base of the wall.
46.42. Processing Fees. Outstanding application processing fees in the amount of
$9,796.81for review of the project and preparation of the environmental review
shall be paid, consistent with the application reimbursement agreement. Any
outstanding fees must be received prior to recordation of the Final Map.
PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval,
consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared and adopted
for the project.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
16
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
47.43. (MM AIR-1.1) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average
of at least 30 percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible
plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
(A) All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower
and operating on the site for more than two days shall meet, at a minimum,
U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or
equivalent.
(B) Generator used to provide power shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA
particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Or
their usage shall be limited to 100 hours total.
48.44. (MM BIO-1.1) Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to
the start of construction activities, if construction activities are proposed to
commence during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid
impacts to nesting birds. These surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist
no more than 14 days before construction begins during the early part of the
breeding season (February 1 through April 30) and no more than 30 days before
construction begins during the latter part of the breeding season (May 1 through
August 31). During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall observe if any
nesting birds are within the project area.
49.45. (MM BIO-1.2) If an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by
construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone to be
established around the nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife. The buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed during
project construction.
50.46. (MM BIO-1.3) The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the
pre-construction survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
51.47. (MM BIO-2.1) Bat Pre-activity Survey. Prior to any removal of trees 12 inches or
greater in diameter at 4.5 feet above grade, a pre-activity survey for roosting bats
will be conducted within the impact area. The survey will be conducted by a
qualified bat biologist. No activities that would result in disturbance of active bat
roosts will proceed prior to the completed survey. If no active roosts or maternity
colonies are found, then no further action is warranted. If a large maternity colony
or bat roost is presented, MM BIO-3.2 or 3.3 shall be implemented.
52.48. (MM BIO-2.2) Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts, if an occupied bat roost is
found in a tree that would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the
Project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the tree. If the roost is
unoccupied at the time of the survey, the City may choose to install bat exclusion
devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
17
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
of the proposed activity. If avoidance is not feasible, MM BIO-3.3 shall be
implemented.
53.49. (MM BIO-2.3) Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active
non-breeding pallid bat roost cannot be avoided, the individuals will be safely
evicted between August 1 and October 15th or between February 15 and March 15.
Bats may be evicted through exclusion after notifying the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Trees with roosts that need to be removed will first be disturbed
at dusk, just prior to removal that evening, to allows bats to escape the darker hours.
54.50. (MM BIO-3.1) Woodrat Pre-Construction Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for
woodrat nests shall be conducted within the impact footprint by a qualified
mammologist prior to the start of work. The surveys shall be conducted between
March 1st and October 31st, when woodrats are more active, and shall be conducted
no more than 30 days prior to the start of work. Woodrat nests detected during the
survey shall be mapped and one or more of the following measures shall be
implemented:
(A) Disturbance-free Woodrat Buffers. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round
residents. Therefore, avoidance mitigation is limited to redesigning the
project to avoid direct impacts on woodrat nests to the extent feasible.
Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer should be maintained between project
construction activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some
situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if in the opinion of a qualified
biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than the anticipated
as a result of Project activities.
(B) Relocation of Woodrat Nest Materials. If active woodrat nests are found
within the Project boundary and avoidance is not feasible, then the
woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests
and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the
woodrats. A qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest such that all
woodrats would seek refuge outside of the Project activity area.
Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be removed from the site, if feasible,
these materials would be piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub. The
spacing between relocated nests shall not be less than 100 feet, unless a
qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher
densities of nests.
55.51. (MM BIO-4.1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
final tree replacement plan to mitigate for proposed tree removals consistent with
Gilroy City Code Article XXXVIII (Landscaping) and Consolidated Landscape
Policy. The final plan shall identify the species, size, numbers, and locations for the
replacement trees. The tree replacement program will be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Manager and shall be implemented with construction of
the subdivision improvements..
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
18
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
56.52. (MM BIO-4.2) The project would also be required to implement tree preservation
measures before and during project construction for significant trees to be retained
(which as revised by the applicant shall include preservation of trees 46, 49, 52, 53,
54, 56, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79 and 80 as shown on Table 3 Trees Recommended for
Removal of the Preliminary Arborist Report). These measures shall be included on
all plans. Tree protection measures include the following Tree Preservation
Guidelines as established in the arborist report prepared for the project
environmental analysis:
Design Recommendations.
(A) The trees identified for preservation shall be established and plotted on all
plans (including but not limited to demolition, improvement, utility,
drainage, grading, landscape and irrigation plans), subject to review and
comment by the Consulting Arborist.
(B) Changes to plans shall be subject to review and comment by the
Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts.
(C) A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around each tree to be
preserved. Specific TPZ zones are specifically required for the following
trees located within the area of development:
Tree No. TPZ
#8 5’ North. Dripline in all
other directions.
#19 5’ North and West.
Dripline in all other
directions.
#31 5’ South. Dripline in all
other directions.
#36, 37, 38 10’ West. Dripline in all
other directions.
(D) TPZ’s for trees not listed above shall be established at the dripline or a 10-
foot radius, whichever is greater.
(E) Underground services and utilities, including subdrains, water and sewer,
shall be routed around the TPZ. Where encroachment cannot be avoided,
special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under
roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury.
(F) All temporary access roads and staging for materials, equipment, etc.,
shall remain outside of TPZ’s.
(G) Herbicides must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
(H) Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within
the TPZ.
Pre-construction Treatments
(I) Per the City’s Consolidated Landscape Policy, policies 6.2 and 6.3, the
developer shall hire a certified consulting arborist for the entire span of the
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
19
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
project. All arborist recommendations shall be drafted on the final
construction, grading, or landscape plans.
(J) The consulting arborist shall sign the final landscape plans authorizing this
plan is consistent with the recommendations made in the arborist report.
(K) The construction superintendent shall meet with the Consulting Arborist
before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.
(L) Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree Protection
Zone prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6’ high
chain link, mounted to steel posts firmly driven into the ground or on
stanchions fastened securely with rebar staples 12” deep, as required by
the City. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is
completed.
(M) Trees recommended for preservation may require clearance
pruning for construction. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified
Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133
and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices -- Tree
Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture.
(N) Structures and underground features to be removed within the Tree
Protection Zone shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from
outside the Tree Protection Zone. The consultant shall be on-site during
all operations within the Tree Protection Zone to monitor demolition
activity.
(O) Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the Tree Protection
Zone.
(P) All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as
California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds.
To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled
outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted
prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing
work buffers for active nests.
During Construction
(Q) Prior to beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity of trees to
be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site
to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree
protection measures.
(R) No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the
Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored
by the Consulting Arborist.
(S) Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to
encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the Consulting
Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting
exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting Arborist will identify
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
20
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
where root pruning is required.
(T) If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be
evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that
appropriate treatments can be applied.
(U) Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to
sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw.
(V) Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a
specific Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree or group of trees. Fences
are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be
relocated or removed without permission of the Consultant.
(W) Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside
fenced areas at all times.
(X) Prior to grading, pad preparation and excavation work trenching may
require root pruning outside of the TPZ. The Consulting Arborist shall
identify where root pruning is required prior to the start of work. Roots
shall be cleanly cut to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by
manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a
vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other
approved root pruning equipment.
(Y) No materials, chemicals, debris or equipment shall be dumped or stored
within the TPZ.
(Z) Any tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be
performed by a Certified Arborist.
Post Construction
(AA) Trees preserved and replacement trees shall be monitored
following construction of site improvements to assure the health of trees
post construction. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest
management, replanting and irrigation may be required.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
GENERAL
57.53. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City
of Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details, and is subject to
all laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. Street improvements and the design of
all off-site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines, and all street sections
shall be in accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City
Master Plan for streets, as approved by the City of Gilroy’s Public Works
Director/City Engineer.
58.54. Until such time as the Improvements are accepted by City, Developer shall be
responsible for and bear the risk of loss to any of the Improvements constructed or
installed.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
21
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
59.55. Applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and local
agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. A copy of these
permits will be provided prior to building permits.
60.56. Applicant shall obtain will serve and review letter from Recology confirming
serviceability and site accessibility of solid waste pickup. Contract Steven
Lucchetti, Operations Manager 408-842-3358.
61.57. All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and if necessary relocated
as approved by the City Engineer. No permanent structure is permitted within City
easements without the approval of the City of Gilroy.
62.58. Prior to building permit issuance, developer shall dedicate necessary easements
for the project development, including but not limited to 16-foot Public Service
easement along all the project proposed and future street frontages. The private
streets shall be designated as a Public Utility Easement (PUE), Water Line
Easement (WLE), and Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVAE).
63.59. Prior to the Final Map recordation applicant shall successfull y obtain and record
necessary ingress/egress and public utility easement from adjacent property owner,
APN 808-19-020, for the extension of the Greenfield Drive to serve the proposed
development.
64.60. Improvement plan shall include all approved Conditions of Approval (COA) and
approved mitigation measures for the project on the 2nd sheet of the improvement
plan set.
65.61. Improvement plan set submittal shall include civil, landscape, electrical and joint
trench plan.
66.62. Public Improvement Plan title sheet shall include a table identifying ownership
and maintenance responsibilities for all existing and proposed improvements,
including but not limited to, streets, water, sewer, storm, street lights, landscaping
and stormwater treatment areas.
FEES
67.63. The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Payment of Street Tree and Storm
Development Impact Fees is required at first building permit issuance. Sewer,
Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees are due prior to
building occupancy.
68.64. At improvement plan submittal, Developer shall submit a $25,000 (Twenty Five
Thousand) initial deposit for plan check and processing. This deposit will be
credited/accounted for toward final plan check and inspection fee.
69.65. Prior to plan approval, developer shall submit a detailed project cost estimate with
appropriate contingency, subject to City Engineer approval.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
22
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
70.66. Prior to final plan approval, Developer shall pay 100% of the plan check and
inspection fees and other related fees that the property is subject to, enter into a
property improvement agreement, and provide payment and performance bonds.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
71.67. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit a grading plan and a
drainage study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The drainage study shall
analyze the existing and ultimate conditions and facilities, and the study shall
include all off-site tributary areas. The study and the design shall be in compliance
with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).
Existing offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity
shall not be altered by the development. The developer shall satisfy the conclusions
and recommendations of the approved drainage study and storm water management
plan.
72.68. All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements. If all or part of the construction occurs during the
rainy season, the developer shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Public
Works Director for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion control
devices and other techniques in accordance with Municipal Code § 27C to
minimize erosion. The developer shall have a QSP on site as necessary to ensure
implementation and maintenance of all erosion control measures. Specific
measures to control sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential
construction contamination sediment runoff, construction pollution and other
potential construction contamination shall be addressed through the Erosion Control
Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall
supplement the Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These
documents shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A
Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board,
with a copy provided to the Engineering Division before a grading permit will be
issued. WDID# shall be provided prior to the commencement or work.
73.69. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved
project’s geotechnical report that was prepared for the design of the project and
shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Site preparation and
cut/fill construction shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a
licensed soils or geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the City of
Gilroy for each phase of construction, stating that all site preparation and cut/fill
construction were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project’s
geotechnical report. This shall be subject to review and approval by the
Engineering Division. The developer shall add this condition to the general notes on
the grading plan.
74.70. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant’s soils engineer shall review the
final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining
walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
23
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
The applicant’s soils engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either
by letter or by signing the plans.
TRANSPORTATION
75.71. Any work in the public right-of-way shall require a traffic control plan prepared
by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans. Traffic
Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the latest
edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Traffic
Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the
public right of way.
76.72. At first plan submittal developer shall model all Emergency Vehicle circulation
movements, as separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the
city Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn Swept analysis software,
all turning and street circulation movements.
77.73. At first plan submittal developer shall model all Solid Waste Vehicle circulation
movements, as separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the
city Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn Swept analysis software,
all turning and street circulation movements.
78.74. Developer shall submit final photometric plans as part of Improvement plans for
review and approval.
79.75. Developer shall install all joint trench to have (4) dedicated 11/2” SCH 80 PVC
conduit for City Fiber Optic need in a quad duct arrangement along public Collector
and Arterial streets. Quad duct shall be per City STD EL-11.
80.76. Developer shall design driveway grades to keep a standard design vehicle from
dragging or “bottoming out” on the street or driveway and to keep water collected
in the street from flowing onto the lots. The details of such design shall be provided
at improvement plan phase and shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Transportation Engineer.
81.77. The developer shall not obstruct the noted sight distance areas. Overall
cumulative height of the grading, landscaping & signs as determined by sight
distance shall not exceed 2 feet when measured from street elevation.
82.78. Project shall connect to the existing 12-foot Class-1 Bike Path (trail) at the
easterly boundary of the project by lot 14.
FINAL MAP
83.79. The Final Tract Map shall be presented to the City Council for review and action.
The City Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days after the
Final Map is deemed technically correct, and Subdivision Improvement Plans with
supporting documents, reports and agreements are approved by the City. Executed
Final Map shall be returned to the City Public Works Department if Final Map has
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
24
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
not been filed in the County Recorder’s Office within ninety (90) days from the
date of City Council’s approval.
84.80. The tentative map and all final maps shall designate all common lots and
easements as lettered lots or lettered easements. The Final map should be clear on
the limits of Public vs. Private (HOA) responsibilities. The Final map should also
be clear of the HOA vs. Homeowners responsibilities.
85.81. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall establish a homeowner
association. The homeowner association shall be responsible for the maintenance
of the landscaping, walls, private streetlights, private utilities, private streets, and
common areas, and shall have assessment power. HOA shall be responsible
maintenance of the Storm Water Control treatment areas and the CC&R’s
shall describe how the stormwater BMPs associated with privately owned
improvements and landscaping shall be maintained by the association. This
information shall be clearly included in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
(CC&R) and recorded documents. The CC&R document shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
82. Uvas Creek Parcel A. Prior to or concurrent with final map approval, Developer
shall dedicate Parcel A for the use of the public. Developer shall complete all
improvements, including but not limited to the proposed Bicycle Trail and its
extension to the adjacent properties. Property Homeowner’s Association shall take
full responsibility for management and maintenance of the proposed improvements
within Parcel A. Seasonal vegetation management shall be scheduled to occur at the
end of the rainy season and consistent with the annual weed abatement resolution.
The HOA shall implement any vegetation management within Parcel A and Fuel
Transition Zones at the beginning of weed abatement season. This language shall
be included in the HOA conditions, covenants and restrictions.
83. The bicycle trail alignment within Parcel A shall avoid identified wetland areas.
86.84. The City shall in good faith support efforts by Developer to facilitate dedication
of the open space parcel to a suitable non-City public agency as a means of ensuring
long term preservation and management of the open space parcel. This shall be
without cost or liability to the City. In the absence of such dedication, the Home
Owners Association shall have the responsibility for the long-term preservation and
management of such area.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
87.85. Prior to building permit issuance, developer shall execute a public improvement
agreement and post Payment and Performance bonds each for 100% of cost for
improvement with the City that shall secure the construction of the public
improvements. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement.
88.86. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for
removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
25
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction
Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
89.87. The developer shall obtain all local and state permits necessary for all project
onsite and offsite construction.
90.88. Prior to any work within public right of way or City easement, the developer shall
obtain an encroachment permit from the City.
WATER QUALITY
91.89. Proposed development shall comply with state mandated regional permits for both
pre-construction and post-construction storm water quality requirements per chapter
27D of the Gilroy Municipal Code, and is subject to, but not limited to, the
following:
a. At grading permit phase, submit a final design Stormwater Management Plan and
final signed Performance Requirement Certifications specified in the City of
Gilroy Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).
b. At improvement plan phase, confirm that the bioretention basin locations shown
on the Stormwater Control Plan match with the locations shown on the
Landscape Plans.
c. Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer of the site shall enter into a
formal written Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with
the City.
i. The City shall record this agreement against the property or properties
involved and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by
the storm water management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater
BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public
Works Engineering.
ii. This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP
maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its
original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of the
proposed modification or maintenance activity.
iii. This Agreement shall also provide that in the event that maintenance
or repair is neglected, or the storm water management facility becomes a
danger to public health or safety, the city shall have the authority to perform
maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner.
iv. All on-site storm water management facilities shall be operated and
maintained in good condition and promptly repaired/replaced by the property
owner(s) or other legal entity approved by the City.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
26
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
v. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in
accordance with City-approved plans.
vi. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance schedule for the
life of any storm water management facility and shall describe the
maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and who shall
perform the maintenance. This maintenance schedule shall be included with
the approved Stormwater Runoff Management Plan.
d. Stormwater BMP Inspections will be required for this project and shall
adhere to the following:
i. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all storm water
management facilities inspected for condition and function by a
knowledgeable third party.
ii. Unless otherwise required by the City Engineer or designee, storm
water facility inspections shall be done at least twice per year, once in Fall, in
preparation for the wet season, and once in Winter. Written records shall be
kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following
information:
1. Site address;
2. Date and time of inspection;
3. Name of the person conducting the inspection;
4. List of storm water facilities inspected;
5. Condition of each storm water facility inspected;
6. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and
7. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection.
e. Upon completion of each inspection, an inspection report shall be
submitted to Public Works Engineering no later than October 1st for the Fall
report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report.
f. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the developer
shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit and provide evidence of filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State
Water Resources Control Board.
92.90. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all
storm water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
27
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations or a project stop order.
UTILITIES
93.91. All service to the development shall be an "underground service" designed and
installed in accordance with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, AT&T (phone)
Company and local cable company regulations. Transformers and switch gear
cabinets shall be placed underground unless otherwise approved by the Planning
Director and the City Engineer. Underground utility plans must be submitted prior
to installation.
94.92. Improvement plans are required for all on-site and off-site improvements. The
following items will need to be completed prior to first building permit submittal:
a) The Developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground
electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication conduits and
cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building
utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction
structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. Show
preferred and alternative locations for all utility vaults and boxes if project has not
obtained PG&E approval. A licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer shall sign the
composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans. (All dry utilities shall be
placed underground).
b) The Developer shall negotiate right-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and
other utilities subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division and
the utility companies.
c) Will Serve Letter” from each utility company for the subdivision shall be supplied
to the City.
95.93. A note shall be placed on the joint trench composite plans which states that the
plan agrees with City Codes and Standards and that no underground utility conflict
exists. The Joint trench consultant shall provide the City a separate “project utility
composite plan” showing all Civil, Landscape, electrical, and joint trench
information to confirm that there are no conflicts with joint trench plan utilities.
Joint Trench Shall not be conceptual.
96.94. Storm and sewer lines in private areas shall be privately owned and maintained by
the HOA.
97.95. Prior to any construction of the dry utilities in the field, the following will need to
be supplied to the City:
a) A professional engineer- original electrical plan.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
28
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
b) A letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan
conforms to City codes and Standards, and to the approved subdivision
improvement plans.
98.96. Sanitary sewer laterals and/or water meters located in driveways shall have traffic
rated boxes and lids.
99.97. The Developer/Contractor shall make accessible any or all City utilities as
directed by the Public Works Director.
100.98.All mainline storm drain piping shall have a minimum diameter of 18 inches and
the lateral connections shall have a minimum diameter of 15 inches.
WATER CONSERVATION
101.99.Landscape design shall comply with the State Water Efficient Landscape
requirements. Prior to building permit issuance complete landscape documentation
package shall be submitted along with landscape plan for review and approval of
the City Engineer; and prior to final/occupancy permit issuance, project Landscape
Architect shall certify compliance with the State requirements and submit a
Certificate of Completion by the owner.
102.100. The project shall fully comply with the measures required by the City’s
Water Supply Shortage Regulations Ordinance (Gilroy City Code, Chapter 27,
Article VI), and subsequent amendments to meet the requirements imposed by the
State of California’s Water Board. This ordinance established permanent voluntary
water saving measures and temporary conservation standards.
103.101. Recycled water shall be used for construction water, where available, as
determined by the Public Works Director. Recycled water shall be billed at the
municipal industrial rate based on the current Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
municipal industrial rate.
WATER
104.102. The proposed 8” DIP water main within the proposed subdivision shall be
connected to the existing water main line on Riverview Circle to provide a looping
water system with two points of connection.
105.103. All construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and billed at the
current hydrant meter rate.
106.104. Where recycled water is not available, as determined by the Public Works
Director, potable water shall be used. All City potable water will be billed based on
the City’s comprehensive fee schedule under the Portable Fire hydrant meter rate.
107.105. The Developer shall perform field verification testing of the water system
and will modify any part of the systems that does not perform to the standards
established by the City.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
29
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
CONSTRUCTION BMP
108.106. It is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that all dirt tracked
into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and
other construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains.
109.107. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of
grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water
trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site
subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the City,
or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order
to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on
public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand
as often as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, or at least once a day.
Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to
minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this
construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the
workweek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Demolition or
earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed
25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
CONSTRUCTION
110.108. If the project has excess fill or cut that will be off-hauled to a site or on-
hauled from a site within the city limits of Gilroy, an additional permit is required.
This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
111.109. The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to
Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The subdivider shall require the
soils engineer to daily submit all testing and sampling and reports to the City
Engineer.
112.110. Prior to Final Map approval, the Developer/Applicant shall submit a
proposed construction phasing and schedule for approval by the City Engineer.
Schedule format shall be Microsoft Project, and shall identify the scheduled critical
path for the installation of improvements. The schedule shall be updated weekly.
113.111. At least one week prior to commencement of work, the Developer shall
post at the site and mail to the Engineering Division and to owners of property
within (300') three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the project site a notice
that construction work will commence on or around the stated date. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of
responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The
list shall be current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate
corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
30
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
responsible for dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the
notice.
114.112. Prior to final inspections, all pertinent conditions of approval and all
improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and
City Engineer.
115.113. All work shown on the improvement plans shall be inspected.
Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Public Works
Director.
116.114. All public improvements, including the complete installation of all
improvements relative to streets, fencing, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water
system, underground utilities, etc., shall be completed and attested to by the City
Engineer before approval of occupancy of any unit. Where facilities of other
agencies are involved, such installation shall be verified as having been completed
and accepted by those agencies.
117.115. Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for general
construction activity. No work shall be done on Sundays and City Holidays. The
Public Works Director may apply additional construction period restrictions, as
necessary, to accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and
along school commute routes.
118.116. The City shall be notified at least two (2) working days prior to the start of
any construction work and at that time the contractor shall provide a project
schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list.
CONSTRUCTION PARKING
119.117. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding
ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street
which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Public
Works Director (§ 15.40.070).
MONUMENTS
120.118. All monuments shall be set per the recorded final map. A certificate letter
by the Surveyor or Engineer will be provided to the City Engineer prior to project
acceptance.
ACCEPTANCE
121.119. Certification of grades and compaction is required prior to Building Permit
final. This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage
Plan.
122.120. Until such time as all improvements required are fully completed and
accepted by City, Developer will be responsible for the care maintenance of and
any damage to such improvements. City shall not, nor shall any officer or employee
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
31
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of
cause, happening or occurring to the work or Improvements required for this project
prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or Improvements. All such risks
shall be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
123.121. The developer shall submit as-built plans for civil, landscape, electrical,
joint trench.
124.122. The developer shall submit AutoCAD files each consultant’s composite
basemap linework showing all public and private improvements and utility layouts.
Utility layers shall be clearly labeled to identify private and public status and
separate pen color designated.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
125.123. TM 16-02 Conditions shall be included on off-site improvement plans as
"Fire Department Notes." Prior to street completion, the Fire Marshal shall be
contacted and a fire clearance for off-site improvements be scheduled. No building
permits will be issued without a Fire –Off-Site Improvement Inspection and Fire
Flow Test administered by the Fire Marshal.
126.124. Open Spaces, including parcel A (between residential lots and the trail)
and parcel C, shall have vegetation management to remove dead plants and debris,
and to remove, disc or mow weeds during weed abatement season from April to
November of each year. Trees in this area shall be limbed up 6’ off the ground. In
HOA managed areas the HOA shall be responsible. For privately owned property it
shall be performed by the property owner.
127.125. Fire Hydrants shall be able to flow 1500 gpm with a 20 psi residual
pressure shall be spaced every 300 ft., and within 150 ft. of any building. Blue
reflectors shall be adhered to the road surface in front of each hydrant.
Improvement plan shall provide Fire Hydrants per the City Standard. Hydrants shall
be installed prior to commencement of construction with combustible materials. A
hydrant flow test shall be performed by Fire Marshal prior to possession by the
water department.
128.126. All homes shall be provided with water laterals and meters sized to allow
for a residential NFPA 13d fire sprinkler system. Off-site improvement plan shall
provide all homes shall be provided with 1.5 inch water laterals and 1” meters sized
to allow for a residential NFPA 13d fire sprinkler system. Plot plans for tract homes
shall specify that the house is to be provided with fire sprinklers.
129.127. Roadways shall provide a minimum 20 feet of unobstructed travel.
Vertical clearance of not less than 13.5 ft. shall be provided. Turning radius shall
not be less than 32’ inside and 40’ outside. Parking restrictions as follows: For road
widths less than 28 ft., no parking on either side, road width less than 36 ft., no
parking on one side, road width at or over 36 ft., parking not restricted.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
32
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
130.128. Where parking is restricted, it shall be posted with signs for No Parking-
Fire Lane and curbs shall be painted red. Include details in Off-Site improvement
plans.
131.129. Final Map shall include a paragraph that reads: “Red curbing and signage
shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. A parking enforcement shall
be implemented by the Homeowners Association and lots A and C subject to
vegetation management by the HOA.”
132.130. All individual lots (lots 1, 2, 9 – 14) that border open space must have
non-combustible perimeter fences, as well as maintain a minimum 30 foot
vegetation zone within their respective lots.
133.131. The homeowners association will be responsible for vegetation
management for parcels A, B, and C.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Resolution TM16-02 - Revised with Redlines (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING SPE 06-04 FOR A
SMALL PROJECT EXEMPTION FROM THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR 14 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONAPPROXIMATELY 8.36 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF
GREENFIELD DRIVE,
APN 808-20-008.WHEREAS, New Hope Community Church submitted application SPE
06-04 for a Small Project Exemption from the Residential Development
Ordinance for fourteen (14) residential units on approximately 8.36 acres zoned R1 (Residential) located
at the northern terminus of Greenfield Drive adjacent to the Uvas
Park Preserve, APN 808-20-008; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the review
and approval of an application for a Small Project Exemption from the RDO
does not confer any entitlement for residential development and therefore is not a "project" for
the purposes of review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council may grant
the requested RDO exemption only if it determines that the application meets the
criteria set forth in Zoning Ordinance section 50.62(b )(1), which criteria are fully discussed in the
Staff Report for SPE 06-04 entitled "
Small Project Exemption" dated October 19,2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission
reviewed application SPE 06-04 at a duly noticed public meeting on November 2, 2006,
and recommended that the City Council approve it; and WHEREAS, the City
Council reviewed application SPE 06-04 and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written
testimony at
its
duly noticed
public
meeting of November
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: City Council Resolution 2006-75 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this project approval is based is the office of the
City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1. The City Council, as required by Zoning Ordinance section 50.62(b)(1), hereby
finds that the project meets the following requirements:
A. The project is consistent with the land use designation on the City's
General Plan map, the intent of the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan document.
B. The water system, sewer system, and street systems are already in place to
serve the property at the terminus of Greenfield Drive and also along
Riverview Circle.
C. The project consists of an allocation for fourteen (14) residential units,
requiring more than twelve (12) units to completely build out the property,
but should be allowed based on the following special circumstances: The
project meets the intent of the RDO Small Project Exemption because the
project site is surrounded by existing or approved future urban
development and is not located on the edge of the City. Even though the
property is over 8 acres, a significant portion of the northern area of the
property (almost one-half the total area) will be required to be dedicated
to the City for the last remaining piece of the Uvas Creek Park Preserve
and Uvas Creek Trail system and, in addition, an existing grove of oak trees
on
2-IMDOLlNGERI710866.
1
112706-04706084 Resolution
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: City Council Resolution 2006-75 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
IMDOLlNGERI71 0866. 1
112706-
04706084 the south side of the property will be preserved as a private park.
The Applicant proposes to completely build out the remainder of the site
with 14 single family residences and no remainder lots, thus precluding
any additional development of the site beyond what is
proposed.D. This parcel was in existence prior to October 4,2001. Further
subdivision of this property beyond the requested 14 units would not be
possible because of the significant dedication required of the riparian habitat
area along Uvas Creek comprising almost half of the property and
the preservation of an oak grove area on the south side of the
property.E. The project site is adjacent to existing residential development on
the south and east sides. The north side is bounded by the Uvas
Creek corridor, and almost half the site will be dedicated to the Uvas Creek
Park Preserve. The project site is adjacent to the approved Glen Loma
Ranch Specific Plan, which will obtain infrastructure from the continuation
of Luchessa Avenue. Infrastructure will be brought from Greenfield
Drive and Riverview Circle to service the project site but will not be
extended beyond the
site.F. The project site will be bounded on three sides by open space and
park facilities. The adjacent residential lots to the southeast are
approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in size. The proposed lots for the project
site range from approximately 3,100 to 6,300 square feet in size, which
are smaller than the neighboring residential lots. However, given that
the
3-Resolution No.
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: City Council Resolution 2006-75 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
project site is significantly surrounded by open space and park area with
only a small corner in the southeast actually adjacent to any residences,
these sizes are not inconsistent for the area.
2. SPE 06-04 should be and hereby is approved subject to the following two (
2)
conditions:A. The Applicant shall obtain approvals ("Approvals") for a Zone
Change from Rl to RI-PUD, Tentative Map, and Architectural &
Site Review,prior to building
permit submittal.B. Time Limits. The Applicant must obtain all Approvals within
two (2)years from the date of this Small Project Exemption
approval, otherwise the Small Project Exemption approval shall be
deemed automatically revoked. Upon application prior to the expiration of the
Small Project Exemption approval and for good cause shown, the
Planning Division Manager may grant an extension of time not to exceed
one year.PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 2006 by the
following vote:AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:ARELLANO,
BRACCO, CORREA,GARTMAN,
VALIQUETTE, VELASCO,
and PINHEIRO NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE 4-
IMDOLlNGERI710866.
1 112706-04706084
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: City Council Resolution 2006-75 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
III
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
dj- (
k- .' ,,-1\-"'! U}Ld /( 1_ ; L{C /'--Rhontla Pellin, City Clerk
IMDOLlNGERI710866.1 112706-04706084
5-Resolution
No.
2006-
75
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: City Council Resolution 2006-75 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached
Resolution No. 2006-75 is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a city
resolution,duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on
the 4th day of December, 2006, at which meeting a quorum was
present.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal
of the City of Gilroy this 15th day of December,
2006.
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: City Council Resolution 2006-75 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: CC Reso 2006-75 Prelim Site Plan (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Attachment 4
TM16-02 Greenfield Subdivision General Plan Consistency Analysis
1
GENERAL PLAN
STRATEGY,
GOAL, POLICY
STRATEGY, GOAL, POLICY SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS
Strategic Direction Chapter
Small Town
Character
Gilroy will be a well-planned, compact community
… it will be easy to get around …
Consistent.
The project provides suitable infill residential
development with connections to existing
trails and walkability to nearby parks and
schools.
Neighborhoods &
Housing
Different types of housing will be integrated
throughout the community …attractively
designed and within easy walking distance of a
local park, open space, or recreational facility…
Consistent.
The project accommodates market rate
single-family development as anticipated by
the General Plan.
Trees, Paths,
Open Spaces
Gilroy’s streets…will be lined with trees … . An
interconnected network of parks, open spaces,
and bike and pedestrian pathways will add to the
feeling of greenery and openness in the City,
incorporating and preserving important natural
features such as Uvas Creek. …
Conditionally Consistent.
The project includes extension of a regional
trail system. Project conditions of approval
would be used to ensure tree preservation,
landscaping and trail improvements are
implemented.
Focus Inward The General Plan supports development on
incorporated lands before extending the City
outward.
Consistent.
The project consists of in-fill development,
though net density is below minimum gross
density due to the preservation of 3.7 acres of
riparian open space.
Protect Resources Gilroy is blessed with a number of natural
resources, including beautiful hillside areas,
creeks, abundant groundwater, open spaces,
and prime agricultural lands. The General Plan
strives to limit, direct and control new
development so that these valuable resources
are protected and maintained.
Generally Consistent.
The project avoids encroachment into creek
riparian areas.
Community Design Chapter
Policy 1.01
Pattern of
Development.
Ensure an orderly, contiguous pattern of
development that prioritizes infill development,
phases new development, encourages
compactness and efficiency, preserves
surrounding open space and agricultural
resources, and avoids land use incompatibilities.
Potentially Inconsistent.
The subdivision constitutes infill development.
However, clustering could improve the
efficiency and preservation of open space
amenities. Uses facing open space areas
would provide better integration, as with the
development to the east.
Policy 1.05
Existing
Neighborhoods
Maintain and enhance the quality of existing
residential neighborhoods, ensuring adequate
public facilities such as parks, schools, streets,
water supply, and drainage. … provide
pedestrian and bicycle circulation facilities to
encourage walking and biking; … Encourage infill
developments that enhance neighborhood
quality,….
Potentially Inconsistent.
The project would more fully comply with this
policy with homes oriented along a frontage
road with homes and public vantage points
facing the public open space; to match the
design of the development on the east side of
the project site.
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Attachment 4
TM16-02 Greenfield Subdivision General Plan Consistency Analysis
2
GENERAL PLAN
STRATEGY,
GOAL, POLICY
STRATEGY, GOAL, POLICY SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS
Policy 1.09
Clustering
Development.
Encourage clustered development as a strategy
for achieving desired densities while protecting
fragile environmental habitats or natural features;
creating amenity open spaces; and achieving
other community design goals.
Potentially Inconsistent.
As stated above the project would more fully
comply with this policy through clustered
development to achieve the minimum density
and maximize integration of the project with
open space.
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.
Conditionally Consistent.
The project will install street trees and
replacement trees to mitigate for tree removal.
Tree mitigation will be required before
acceptance of the subdivision tract.
Transportation / Circulation Chapter
Policy 14.05
Private
Development of
Bike and
Pedestrian
Facilities.
Involve private development in providing
bikeways, pedestrian pathways, and support
facilities when such facilities pass through or
about a development site.
Consistent.
The project includes plan for dedication and
improvement to extend the regional bicycle
pathway along Uvas Creek and to link with
existing trail connections to the west and east.
Public Facilities and Services Chapter
Policy 16.02
Park Fees.
Require new subdivisions to dedicate land [or
pay fees] for development of recreation facilities,
… , to serve the subdivision, neighborhood, and
community. … [ to maintain City’s established
standard of 5 acres of developed park land per
thousand population per Policy 16.01]
Consistent.
The project includes a 3.7 acre dedication of
open space along Uvas Creek.
Policy 16.04
Parks and
Recreation
System Master
Plan
Develop and regularly update a Parks and
Recreation System Master Plan to guide the
planning, design and implementation of a
citywide system of parks and recreation facilities
and programs, including cultural and other
special use facilities, in keeping with the goals
and policies of the General Plan
Potentially Inconsistent.
The Parks and Recreation System Master
Plan discourage parks abutting residential
lands.
Similarly, Uvas Creek Park Preserve plan
design criteria for future development along
the park calls for limiting back and side
fencing to provide maximum access to creek
frontage, and 25 foot minimum landscape
buffers and setbacks (page 48).
A roadway or other feature should separate
the park and residential property line. As
designed the plan proposes fencing along
rear yards facing the open space.
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Attachment 4
TM16-02 Greenfield Subdivision General Plan Consistency Analysis
3
GENERAL PLAN
STRATEGY,
GOAL, POLICY
STRATEGY, GOAL, POLICY SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS
Policy 16.05
Trails Master Plan.
Develop a Trails Master Plan to guide the
planning, design and implementation of a
citywide trail network. The Plan should indicate
specific trail alignments and opportunities,
identify private and public property with trails
potential, and set forth acquisition/easement
priorities. To support implementation of the Trails
Master Plan, encourage incentive points for on-
site trails dedication or contribution to off -site
trails as part of the RDO process
Consistent.
The project includes dedication of land to
extend the regional bicycle trail system in
Uvas Creek Park Preserve, consistent with
City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation System
Master Plan (GP&RSMP, Sept. 2004) (Page
77). Uvas Creek Park Preserve levee trail and
Babbs Creek Park Preserve are important
components of the City park system and
master plan (GP&RSMP page 27). Uvas
Creek has more than 125 acres and 1.75
miles of paved trail. The project contributes an
additional 3.7 acres and over 530 feet of
additional paved trail.
Policy 16.12
Pathway Network
and Facility
Connections.
Create a linked network of bicycle and pedestrian
pathways to connect the City’s parks, park
preserves, and community facilities, coordinated
with the County Trails Master Plan to provide
linkages to State and County facilities. The
network system shall consist of linear parkways
and off-road trails when feasible, interconnected
with the citywide bike path and route system set
forth in the Bicycle Transportation Plan and Trails
Master Plan documents.
Consistent.
As proposed and conditioned the project is
within ½ mile of a school and park, dedicates
3.7 acres of public open space including
extension of the bicycle trail system along
Uvas Creek, and should complete a
connection initiated along its west boundary
(consistent with the Parks master plan page
122).
Policy 16.14
Facility Priorities.
In addition to updates and completion of existing
parks and facilities, initiate the following new
facilities by the year 2020 … Expansion of Uvas
Creek Park Preserve, …
Consistent.
The project includes dedication of 3.7 acres of
property along Uvas Creek.
Community Resources Chapter
Policy 20.01
Open Space
Areas.
Preserve and protect the.. Natural resource and
wildlife habitat areas, such as the Uvas Creek
and Llagas Creek riparian communities; ….
Generally Consistent.
The project has avoided encroachment into
the open space areas. However, the project
would be improved by clustering development
to orient lots to the open space separated by
a roadway. As proposed the open space is
separated by retaining walls and fences of
rear yards that abut the open space lands.
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Attachment 4
TM16-02 Greenfield Subdivision General Plan Consistency Analysis
4
GENERAL PLAN
STRATEGY,
GOAL, POLICY
STRATEGY, GOAL, POLICY SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS
20.02
Open Space and
Habitat Areas,
Creek Protection
Protect the ecological, aesthetic and recreational
value of the creeks that flow through the Gilroy
Planning Area from urban encroachment and
degradation. Ensure that new development
preserves the function of natural drainages,
including small canyons and seasonal creeks.
The easements and setbacks adjacent to these
creeks shall be maintained in open space.
Access to creeks should be of sufficient width to
accommodate trails, flood control access, and
protection of riparian habitat.
Partially Inconsistent.
As discussed above, the subdivision would
back toward the open space areas which
would not promote integration and visibility
into the Uvas Creek corridor, potentially
degrading the safety, preservation and
recreational value of the creek.
The Parks master plan encourages regulating
development to protect the environmental and
scenic value of the creek and preserve (Page
122). Orienting homes to face the open space
would be deemed to be more compatible with
the plan.
Policy 20.03
Plant and Wildlife
Habitats.
Preserve important plant and wildlife habitats,
including riparian communities, heavily vegetated
hillside areas, unique hillside ecosystems,
creeks, and ... nesting sites. … .
Consistent.
The project avoids impacts on riparian habitat
with setbacks provided from these areas and
urban development.
Policy 20.06.
Open Space
Access and
Management
Manage and maintain public open space areas
and encourage the management and
maintenance of private open space areas in a
manner that ensures habitat protection, provides
for public access, addresses public safety
concerns, and meets low-impact recreation
needs.
Consistent.
The project provides access within planned
trails that would extend through the Uvas
Creek Park Preserve open space parcel.
Policy 20.07
Preservation
Techniques
Develop and apply a variety of preservation tools
to protect open space in and around the City. …
In the selection and application of preservation
methods, emphasis should be, given, in no
particular order, to (1) minimizing public costs
and liability exposure; (2) consideration of long-
term management and maintenance issues; (3)
consideration of public access issues; and (4)
ensuring preservation in perpetuity.
Consistent.
Dedication of land as part of the plan to
preserve open space along Uvas Creek is
consistent with the City parks and trails plans.
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Attachment 4
TM16-02 Greenfield Subdivision General Plan Consistency Analysis
5
GENERAL PLAN
STRATEGY,
GOAL, POLICY
STRATEGY, GOAL, POLICY SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
ANALYSIS
Policy 20.08
Open Space and
the Parks and
Recreation system
Open space areas have important community
value, but may have limited or no recreational
value due to public safety and access issues.
While preservation of these lands should be
strongly encouraged, they should not be
dedicated as part of the City’s Parks and
Recreation System, due to long-term
management and liability issues, unless a
recreational value can be demonstrated
consistent with the Parks and Recreation Facility
Classification System (page 7-9). Participation in
the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority,
and dedication of these open space lands to the
Authority or other public agencies, should be
further explored as a means of ensuring longterm
preservation and management of non-
recreational open space. Land owners who
prefer not to dedicate open space land to a
public agency are encouraged to consider land
dedication to a private land trust such as the
Land Trust for Santa Clara County.
Generally Consistent.
While preservation of these lands should be
strongly encouraged, staff has encouraged
exploration of dedication of these open space
lands to the Authority or other public
agencies. However, dedication of the open
space to the City is consistent with past
practice.
Action 20.B
Habitat and Urban
Streams/Creek
Protection.
Require development along creeks to be set
back from the entire floodway of the creek. … .
Consistent.
The project nearest parcel boundary is 100
feet from the top of bank and/or 35 foot
riparian setback required from the creek which
has been identified as the appropriate setback
distance for this area, consistent with adjacent
development. The project also is identified as
falling outside of the flood plain and outside of
the SCVWD easement area for flood
management.
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
COMMENT LETTERS ON THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Copies of the submitted written comment letters can be found in Attachment A
Comment Letters:
A. Santa Clara Valley Water District August 27, 2018
A. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT, DATED AUGUST 27, 2018
COMMENT A-1: Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the subject project. The District is a special district with jurisdiction
throughout Santa Clara County. The District acts as the county's groundwater management agency,
principal water resources manager, flood protection agency and is the steward for its watersheds,
streams and creeks, and underground aquifers. Additionally, the District is a Responsible Agency as
the portions of the project located within the District's flowage easement for Uvas Carnadero Creek
will require a District Water Resources Protection Ordinance encroachment permit for the
construction of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the MND. This letter transmits comments that focus
on the areas of interest and expertise of the District.
Biological Resources
Pages 35 and 36-The MND states that the swale running parallel to Uvas Creek was
evaluated and determined not to be a Category 2 stream based on an analysis in
Appendix B-3 and that there are no wetlands on-site. The District recommends that
the analysis in Appendix B-3 be amended to specifically address each of the criterion
in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and affirmatively and clearly state which
criterion the swale met and which criterion was not met to support the determination
that the swale was not a Category 2 stream. The text should also clarify that, per
Appendix B-3, there may be wetlands on site, and identify how grading operations
and trail construction will avoid impacting the potential wetland since Appendix 8-3
shows the trail going through the potential wetland area.
Page 37-Figure 4.4-1 dated February 2017 does not show the potential wetland
area depicted on Figure 1, dated October 2017 in Appendix B-3.
RESPONSE A-1: Figure 4.4-1 has been revised to show the location of the potential
wetland area, and the text of the Initial Study has been revised to include a discussion of
impacts to this potential wetland area (refer to Revisions to the Text of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration).
As described in Appendix B-3, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) guidance on
mapping Category 2 streams was utilized when determining the swale feature is not a
Category 2 stream. The swale feature was surveyed by the project biologist using SCVHP
guidance, as well as indicators of regular flows used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
(USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), both signatories of
the SCVHP. The USACE provides the most detailed guidance on the determination of
whether an area should be regulated as a stream, even if the stream is ephemeral and only
conveys concentrated flows during and after rainfall events. In non-tidal waters, USACE
jurisdiction extends to the OHWM which is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 as “the line on the
shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such
as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil,
destruction of terrestrial vegetation or the presence of litter and debris.”
The USACE has provided further guidance in interpreting the code for this region, expanding
the types of indicators considered to be useful for determining OHWM. Five relatively
recent publications have attempted to further refine the definition of OHW and the
delineation of the OHWM in the arid west (including California):
Review of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid
Streams in the Southwestern United States (USACE 2004)
Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and Their
Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid
Southwestern Channels (USACE 2006)
Review and Synopsis of Natural and Human Controls on Fluvial Channel
Processes in the Arid West (Field and Lichvar 2007)
A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A
Delineation Manual (Lichvar and McColley 2008)
Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE
2010)
In addition, Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (dated 7 December 2005) deals specifically
with the topic of OHWM identification. That publication lists the following physical
characteristics that should be considered when making an OHWM determination: (1) natural
line impressed on the bank; (2) shelving; (3) changes in the character of the soil; (4)
destruction of terrestrial vegetation; (5) wracking; (6) vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent; (7) sediment sorting; (8) leaf litter disturbed or washed away; (9) scour; (10)
deposition; (11) multiple observed flow events; (12) bed and banks; (13) water staining; and
(14) and change in plant community.
The project biologist considered all of the above guidance, including SCVHP criteria, when
surveying the site and making a determination that the swale is not a Category 2 stream. This
determination, therefore, is based on accepted practice and substantial evidence.
COMMENT A-2:
Hydrology and Water Quality
Page 61-The proposed fill and slope grading and double retaining walls
located at the rear of Lots 9 through 14 have the potential to change the
runoff pattern leaving the site in a manner which may increase erosion and
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
subsequently increase sediment entering Uvas Carnadero Creek. The project
should include mitigations to address drainage from the retaining walls and
the new slopes and future trail to prevent future erosion problems. The
District recommends mitigation measures include vegetative plantings on the
slopes, and ensuring runoff or drainage from the retaining walls and future
trail is designed to spread out evenly over vegetated buffer areas rather than
collected and discharged at a single point(s).
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the MND. We would appreciate receiving a copy of
the final adopted document when it is available for our use in determining adequacy for our use as a
Responsible Agency. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (408) 630- 2319, or by e-
mail at yarroyo@valleywater.org. Please reference District File No. 29721 on future correspondence
regarding this project.
RESPONSE A-2: As described in Sections 4.6.2, 4.9.3, and 4.17-2 of the Initial Study,
future development on the site would be required to comply with the City of Gilroy’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit,
issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Conformance
with the provisions of the Construction General Permit, including the preparation of erosion
control plans and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will minimize the
potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts to the adjacent Uvas Carnadero Creek
corridor during construction of the project. The project must also provide a stormwater
control plan that details how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the
project will be controlled or managed by the project’s post construction BMP designs. This
will include a description of the proposed drainage system for the retaining walls. Based on
the City’s Stormwater Ordinance (Chapter 27D), the stormwater control plan shall include
sufficient information to evaluate the environmental characteristics of affected areas, the
potential impacts of the proposed development on water resources, and the effectiveness and
acceptability of measures proposed for managing stormwater runoff. The minimum
information submitted for support of the stormwater management plan must also meet the
requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Guidance Manual for Low Impact
Development and Post-Construction Requirements. Prior to issuance of grading and building
permits for the project, the stormwater control plan will be reviewed by the City Engineer,
and appropriate BMPs and measures will be required.
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following section contains text revisions to the Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Project
Subdivision Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated July 2018.
Added text is underlined and deleted text is strikethrough.
Page 30: REVISE Section 4.4.1, Environmental Checklist, as shown.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1-2, 9-11
Page 32: REVISE Table 4.4-1 as shown.
Table 4.4-1:
SCVHP Conditions and Project Applicability
Condition Project Applicability and Justification
Condition 12. Wetland and pond
avoidance and Minimization
Applicable. The proposed trail could Project
would not directly impact wetlands., but all
covered projects are The project would be
required to comply with this condition to avoid
indirect impacts to wetlands and streams
downstream of the project.
Page 36: REVISE Section 4.4.2, Impacts Discussion, as shown.
The biological field surveys for the project did not identify any wetlands on-site. Additionally,
the project site is located outside of the 35-foot riparian setback for Uvas Creek. Project
construction would not temporarily or permanently impact any wetlands on-site. (No Impact)
Vegetation associated with wetland habitat is present in a swale located in the northwest portion
of the site (refer to Figure 4.4-1). The presence of this vegetation means that it is possible that
marginal seasonal wetlands may exist in the swale. The proposed trail could impact the potential
wetlands as shown on Figure 4.4-1. The SCVHP allows for wetland impacts, although a
specialty fee is required for direct impacts to wetlands. No specific setback distance is required
by the SCVHP for jurisdictional wetlands, although Conditions 3 and 12 provide avoidance and
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
minimization measures to protect wetlands in and adjacent to SCVHP covered projects. The
project would be required to conform with applicable SCVHP conditions and fees. Conformance
with the conditions of the SCVHP and payment of applicable fees would reduce potential
impacts to the potential wetland on-site from trail construction and operation to a less than
significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Page 37: REVISE Figure 4.4-1, as shown.
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
SETBACKS AND LAND COVER TYPES FIGURE 4.4-1Greenfield Dr
Rivervie
wCi
r
AltaO akW ayVillagePl
aceTrail
Sheet flow
concentrates
Culvert
Legend
Project Site
Creek Centerline
Top of Bank
35-ft Riparian Setback
100-ft Category 1 Stream Setback
250-ft Riparian Setback
Sheet Flow
Potential Wetlands (20% wetland / 80% upland)
VHP Land Cover
California Annual Grassland (3.61 ac)
Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest (2.86 ac)
Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest (1.66 ac)
Ornamental Woodland (0.01 ac)
Perennial Stream (0.44 ac)
150 0 15075
Feet±
Legend
Project Site
Creek Centerline
Top of Bank
35-ft Riparian Setback
100-ft Category 1 Stream Setback
250-ft Riparian Setback
Sheet Flow
Potential Wetlands (20% wetland / 80% upland)
Retaining Wall
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
ATTACHMENT A
Comment Letters
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Final MND Responses to Comments (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
City of Gilroy, California
Community Development Department
Planning Division
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 94583
Project Name: Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision
Project Number: TM 16-02
Address/Location: Greenfield Drive, City of Gilroy, CA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in according to
Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 15097 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which requires a MMRP as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaratio n (MND) process.
The results of the environmental analysis, including findings related to the proposed mitigation
measures, are documented in the Final MND.
CEQA requires that agencies adopting MNDs take the necessary steps to ensure that designated
mitigation measures are appropriately implemented during all stages of the project including
construction and throughout the project build-out. Therefore, the purpose of this MMRP is to
document execution of required mitigations, identify the appropriate entity responsible for mitigation
monitoring and reporting, document and establish frequency/duration of monitoring and reporting,
and ultimately to ensure compliance.
The following MMRP matrix lists each of the mitigation measures adopted as a condition of proj ect
approval, the method required for implementation, the party or permit responsible for implementing
the measures, the timeframe for which the measure is relevant, and the status of compliance.
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 1 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
Air Quality
AQ-1.1. Off-Road Equipment Plan. The project shall develop a
plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to
construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average of at least 30
percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible
plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25
horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days
shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent.
Generator used to provide power shall meet, at a minimum,
U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4
engines or equivalent. Or their usage shall be limited to 100
hours total.
The construction contractor could use other measures to minimize
construction period DPM emission to reduce the estimated cancer risk
below the thresholds. The use of equipment that includes CARB-
certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively-fueled
equipment (i.e., non-diesel) could meet this requirement. Other
measures may be the use of added exhaust devices, or a combination
of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City
and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than
significant.
Submittal of plan
demonstrating that off-road
equipment used on-site would
achieve designated DPM
exhaust reduction.
City of
Gilroy
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
________
Biologic Resources
BIO-1.1. Nesting Bird Surveys. Pre-construction nesting bird
surveys shall be completed prior to the start of construction activities,
if construction activities are proposed to commence during the nesting
season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to nesting
birds. These surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no
Submittal of a report
documenting the results of the
nesting bird surveys.
City of
Gilroy
Prior to the issuance
of grading and
building permits.
________
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 2 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
more than 14 days before construction begins during the early part of
the breeding season (February 1 through April 30) and no more than
30 days before construction begins during the latter part of the
breeding season (May 1 through August 31). During this survey, the
biologist or ornithologist shall observe if any nesting birds are within
the project area.
BIO-1.2. Active Nest Buffers. If an active nest is found in an area
that will be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate
an adequate buffer zone to be established around the nest, in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
buffer would ensure that nests shall not be disturbed during project
construction.
BIO-1.3. Pre-Construction Survey Results Report. The applicant
shall submit a report indicating the results of the pre-construction
survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
Submittal of a report
identifying nest protection
zones onto applicable grading
and building plans.
Submittal of a report
indicating the results of the
pre-construction survey and
any buffer zones.
Same as
above
Same as
above
Prior to the issuance
of grading and
building permits.
Prior to the issuance
of demolition,
grading and building
permits.
________
________
BIO-2.1. Bat Pre-activity Survey. Prior to any removal of trees 12
inches or greater in diameter at 4.5 feet above grade, a pre -activity
survey for roosting bats will be conducted within the impact area. The
survey will be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. No activities
that would result in disturbance of active bat roosts will proceed prior
to the completed survey. If no active roosts or maternity colonies are
found, then no further action is warranted. If a large maternity colony
or bat roost is presented, MM BIO-2.2 or 2.3 shall be implemented.
BIO-2.2. Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts, if an occupied bat
roost is found in a tree that would be disturbed or removed by
proposed activities, the Project may be redesigned to avoid the
disturbance of the tree. If the roost is unoccupied at the time of the
Submittal of a report
indicating the results of the
roosting bat survey. If a
maternity colony/bat roost is
present, submittal of a report
indicating which mitigation
measure was implemented will
also be required.
Same as above
City of
Gilroy
Same as
above
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
Same as above
________
________
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 3 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
survey, the City may choose to install bat exclusion devices to prevent
bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset of the
proposed activity. If avoidance is not feasible, MM BIO-2.3 shall be
implemented.
BIO-2.3. Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance If disturbance of an
active non-breeding pallid bat roost cannot be avoided, the individuals
will be safely evicted between August 1 and October 15th or between
February 15 and March 15. Bats may be evicted through exclusion
after notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Trees
with roosts that need to be removed will first be disturbed at dusk, just
prior to removal that evening, to allows bats to escape the darker
hours.
Same as above
Same as
above
Between August 1
and October 15th or
between February
15th and March 15th.
________
BIO-3.1. Woodrat Pre-construction Surveys. Pre-construction
surveys for woodrat nests shall be conducted within the impact
footprint by a qualified mammologist prior to the start of work. The
surveys shall be conducted between March 1st and October 31st, when
woodrats are more active, and shall be conducted no more than 30
days prior to the start of work. Woodrat nests detected during the
survey shall be mapped and one or more of the following measures
shall be implemented:
BIO-3.2. Disturbance-free Woodrat Buffers. Dusky-footed
woodrats are year-round residents. Therefore, avoidance mitigation is
limited to redesigning the project to avoid direct impacts on woodrat
nests to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer should
be maintained between project construction activities and each nest to
avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be
allowed if in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the nest
would be a greater impact than the anticipated as a result of Project
activities.
Submittal of a report
documenting results of the pre-
construction survey and
indicating which mitigation
measures were implemented
based on the mammologist’s
recommendations.
Same as above
City of
Gilroy
Same as
above
30 days prior to the
start of work,
between March 1st
and October 31st.
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits.
________
________
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 4 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
BIO-3.3. Relocation of Woodrat Nest Materials. If active woodrat
nests are found within the Project boundary and avoidance is not
feasible, then the woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the
removal of the nests and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid
injury or mortality of the woodrats. A qualified biologist shall disturb
the woodrat nest such that all woodrats would seek refuge outside of
the Project activity area. Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be
removed from the site, if feasible, these materials would be piled at the
base of a nearby tree or shrub. The spacing between relocated nests
shall not be less than 100 feet, unless a qualified biologist has
determined that the habitat can support higher densities of nests.
Same as above Same as
above
Same as above
________
BIO-4.1. Tree Replacement Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant shall submit a final tree replacement plan to
mitigate for proposed tree removals consistent with Gilroy City Code
Article XXXVIII (Landscaping) and Consolidated Landscape Policy.
The final plan shall identify the species, size, numbers, and locations
for the replacement trees. The tree replacement program will be
subject to review and approval by the Planning Manager and shall be
implemented with construction of the subdivision improvements.
BIO-4.2. Tree Preservation Measures. The project would also be
required to implement tree preservation measures before and during
project construction for significant trees to be retained. These
measures shall be included on all plans. Tree protection measures
include:
Submittal of a final tree
replacement plan.
Inclusion of tree preservation
measures on all construction
plans.
City of
Gilroy
Same as
above
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
During all phases of
construction and
project operation.
________
________
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 5 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
Design Recommendations
1. The trees identified for preservation shall be established and
plotted on all plans (including but not limited to demolition,
improvement, utility, drainage, grading, landscape and irrigation
plans), subject to review and comment by the Consulting
Arborist.
2. Changes to plans shall be subject to review and comment by the
Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts.
3. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around each
tree to be preserved. Specific TPZ zones are specifica lly required
for the following trees located within the area of development:
4. TPZ’s for trees not listed above shall be established at the
dripline or a 10-foot radius, whichever is greater.
5. Underground services and utilities, including subdrains, water
and sewer, shall be routed around the TPZ. Where encroachment
cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand
digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where
necessary to minimize root injury.
6. All temporary access roads and staging for materials, equipment,
etc., shall remain outside of TPZ’s.
7. Herbicides must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use.
8. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will
occur within the TPZ.
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 6 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
Pre-construction Treatments
9. Per the City’s Consolidated Landscape Policy, policies 6.2 and
6.3, the developer shall hire a certified consulting arborist for the
entire span of the project. All arborist recommendations shall be
drafted on the final construction, grading, or landscape plans.
10. The consulting arborist shall sign the final landscape plans
authorizing this plan is consistent with the recommendations
made in the arborist report.
11. The construction superintendent shall meet with the Consulting
Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and
tree protection.
12. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree
Protection Zone prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences
shall be 6’ high chain link, mounted to steel posts firmly driven
into the ground or on stanchions fastened securely with rebar
staples 12” deep, as required by the City. Fences are to remain
until all grading and construction is completed.
13. Trees recommended for preservation may require clearance
pruning for construction. All pruning shall be completed by a
Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition
of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best
Management Practices -- Tree Pruning published by the
International Society of Arboriculture.
14. Structures and underground features to be removed within the
Tree Protection Zone shall use the smallest equipment, and
operate from outside the Tree Protection Zone. The consultant
shall be on-site during all operations within the Tree Protection
Zone to monitor demolition activity.
15. Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the Tree
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 7 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
Protection Zone.
16. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not
disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and
removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season.
Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work.
Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work
buffers for active nests.
During Construction
1. Prior to beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity
of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting
Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes,
storage areas and tree protection measures.
2. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur
within the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be
approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
3. Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected
to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the
Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a
trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw. The
Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required.
4. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should
be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so
that appropriate treatments can be applied.
5. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be
exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw.
6. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEPTEMBER 2018 P A G E | 8 GILROY | GREENFIELD DRIVE 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Responsible
for
Verification
Action Schedule
Verification of
Completion
define a specific Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree or
group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been
completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without
permission of the Consultant.
7. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain
outside fenced areas at all times.
8. Prior to grading, pad preparation and excavation work trenching
may require root pruning outside of the TPZ. The Consulting
Arborist shall identify where root pruning is required prior to the
start of work. Roots shall be cleanly cut to the depth of the
excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and
cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a vibrating knife, rock
saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root
pruning equipment.
9. No materials, chemicals, debris or equipment shall be dumped or
stored within the TPZ.
10. Any tree pruning required for clearance during construction must
be performed by a Certified Arborist.
Post Construction
1. Trees preserved and replacement trees shall be monitored
following construction of site improvements to assure the health
of trees post construction. Occasional pruning, fertilization,
mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be
required.
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Greenfield Drive
14 - Lot Residential
Subdivision
File No. TM 16-02
Prepared by the
July 2018
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1
Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Title ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Lead Agency Contact ............................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.5 Assessor’s Parcel Number ...................................................................................................... 2
2.6 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ....................................................................... 2
2.7 Habitat Plan Designation ........................................................................................................ 2
2.8 Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................................................... 3
2.9 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits............................................................ 3
Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Impact Discussion ......................................................... 12
4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................................... 20
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 22
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 30
4.5 Cultural & Tribal Resources ................................................................................................. 43
4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 47
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 51
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 55
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 59
4.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 65
4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 68
4.12 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................................................. 69
4.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 75
4.14 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 77
4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 79
4.16 Transportation/Traffic........................................................................................................... 81
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 84
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 87
Section 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 91
Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ....................................................................................... 92
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Map .................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.0-3: Aerial Photography and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................ 6
Figure 3.0-1: Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.0-2: Stormwater Management Plan ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.0-3: Retaining Wall Locations .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 4.4-1: Setbacks and Land Cover Types ................................................................................... 37
Photos
Photos 1 & 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Photos 3 & 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Photos 5 & 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Photo 7 ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Tables
Table 4.3-1: Thresholds of Significance Used in Air Quality Analyses .............................................. 24
Table 4.3-2: 2017 CAP Applicable Control Measures ........................................................................ 25
Table 4.3-3: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Size .......................................... 25
Table 4.4-1: SCVHP Conditions and Project Applicability ................................................................ 31
Table 4.3-1: Trees On-Site ................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4.12-1: City of Gilroy Permissible Maximum Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels .................... 71
Appendices
Appendix A: Community Risk Assessment
Appendix B-1: Arborist Report
Appendix B-2: Biological Constraints Report
Appendix B-3: Category 2 Stream Assessment
Appendix C: Archaeological Literature Search
Appendix D: Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil Quality Investigation
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The City of Gilroy as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the Greenfield Drive
Residential Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies
of the City of Gilroy, California.
The project proposes to subdivide an undeveloped 8.56-acre lot for future construction of 14 single
family residences. This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impac ts that might reasonably be
anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 30-day public review and comment period.
During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to
interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental
review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should be sent to:
Kraig Tambornini
Community Development Department, Planning Division
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
kraig.tambornini@ci.gilroy.ca.us
1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City of Gilroy will consider the adoption of
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled
meeting. The City of Gilroy shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments
received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with
project approval actions.
1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City of Gilroy will file a Notice of De termination (NOD), which will
be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office
for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the
approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision
2.2 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
City of Gilroy
Community Development Department
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
(408) 846-0214
kraig.tambornini@ci.gilroy.ca.us
2.3 PROJECT APPLICANT
James Suner
The James Group
2201 Columbine Court
Gilroy, CA 95020
2.4 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at the northern terminus of Greenfield Drive in the City of Gilroy. The site
is located west of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), north of West Luchessa Avenue, and is located
directly south of Uvas Creek. A regional map and vicinity map of the site are shown on Figure 2.0-1
and 2.0-2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses is shown in Figure
2.0-3.
2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
APN: 808-20-008
2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
General Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: (R1) Single Family Residential
2.7 HABITAT PLAN DESIGNATION
Private Development Areas Area 1: Private Development Covered
Area 4: Urban Development Greater Than Two Acres
Covered
Land Cover Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland
Urban Suburban
Land Cover Fee Zone Urban Areas and Fee Zone B.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
2.8 SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Open Space South: Low Density
Residential/Educational Facility
East: Low Density Residential/Open
Space
West: Future park/Educational Facility
2.9 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
• Tentative Map
• Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Permit
• Final Map
• Grading Permit
• Tree Removal Permit
• SCVWD Encroachment Permit
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
REGIONAL MAPFIGURE 2.0-1152152129152156252511101101101MorganHillSanMartinGilroyAromasFreedomPajaroWatsonvilleMorganHillSanMartinGilroyAromasFreedomPajaroWatsonvilleSan Francisco BayPacific OceanMonterey BaySan JoséFremontSan FranciscoSanta CruzMountain ViewMorgan HillSan JoséFremontSan FranciscoSanta CruzMountain ViewMorgan HillWatsonvilleWatsonvilleSalinasSalinasMontereyMontereyProject SiteProject SiteGilroyGilroyProject Site8.A.iPacket Pg. 123Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14
VICINITY MAPFIGURE 2.0-2Monterey Street
West 10th StreetM ill e r Avenue Santa Teresa BoulevardUvas Park DriveMonterey Street
West 10th StreetM ill e r Avenue Santa Teresa BoulevardUvas Park DriveUvas CreekUvas Creek Project Site0 250 500 10002000 Feet8.A.iPacket Pg. 124Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USESFIGURE 2.0-3Alta Oak WayV il l a g e P la ceBrook WayBlackberry CourtBerrybush Court
Snowberry Ct
West Luchessa AvenueGreenfield Drive
Cimino StreetAlta Oak WayV il l a g e P la ceBrook WayBlackberry CourtBerrybush Court
Snowberry Ct
West Luchessa AvenueGreenfield Drive
Cimino Street
Thomas RoadThomas Road
ResidentialGilroy High SchoolResidentialResidentialUvas CreekUvas CreekProject BoundaryAerial Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2, 2017.Photo Date: Apr. 20160 50 200400 600 Feet8.A.iPacket Pg. 125Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The project proposes to subdivide the approximately 8.56 acre project site into 14 single-family
residential lots with an average lot size of 10,578 square feet to allow the future construction of 14
single family residences.1 A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 3.0-1.
3.1.1 Riparian Setback
The project site is located directly adjacent to the southern bank of Uvas Creek and include s a 100-
foot riparian setback from the top of the creek bank and a 35-foot setback from associated riparian
habitat. All 14 single-family residential lots would be located outside of the setback area. The
project would create a separate 3.70-acre parcel (Parcel A) that would include the Uvas Creek
channel and portions of a riparian setback area that would be dedicated to the City of Gilroy or to
SCVWD.
3.1.2 Infrastructure
The project would include site regrading and construction of a road, distinguished as four road
segments (proposed street names: Moses, Noah, Faith, and Hope). The roads would be thirty-six-
foot-wide private streets that would provide access to all 14 single-family lots. New water and
sanitary sewer mains would be placed within the road right-of-way of Greenfield Circle and connect
to existing mains located in Greenfield Drive. New sidewalks would be constructed along Greenfield
Circle to provide pedestrian access to the project site.
The project would also include construction of a twelve-foot-wide Class I recreational trail along the
northern portion of the project site on the south side of Uvas Creek. The trail would be constructed
per City of Gilroy standards and would connect to an existing Class I bicycle path located along
Riverview Circle, directly east of the project site. Portions of the proposed trail would be located
within the riparian setback area. The trail, creek and riparian area would be dedicated to the City of
Gilroy as a 3.7-acre public park Parcel A.
Two bioretention ponds would be constructed in the southeast portion of the project site for
stormwater infiltration purposes. Bioretention areas would also be installed along Greenfield Circle
to treat stormwater.
3.1.3 Landscape Plan
The project would require the removal of up to 28 trees. Several trees behind lots 9 through 14 have
been able to be preserved with revised grading, consisting of a double retaining wall system behind
the proposed residential building pads on these lots (i.e., trees 46, 59, 74, 76. 77 and 79 as shown on
HortScience Tree Assessment Plan). For location of the proposed retaining walls, refer to Figure
3.0-3. Replacement trees and new landscaping would be planted to mitigate for trees to be removed,
in accordance with the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy and recently adopted
1 No architectural or site design plans are proposed at this time. Approval of architectural and site design plans
would be required prior to construction of the residences.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Ordinance 2018-06, amending Gilroy City Code Article 30.38 “Landscaping”. Additionally, at least
a 30-foot buffer area around each residence would be required to be clear of brush, flammable
vegetation, or combustible growth, with the exception of preserved individual trees that are well -
pruned.
3.1.4 Project Construction
Construction of the project would last approximately one year. Due to existing slopes, grading on
the site would require cut and fill activities. Approximately 1,063 cubic yards of cut would be reused
on the site and 20,721 cubic yards of fill would be imported. Construction would occur per the City
of Gilroy Code, on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and on Saturdays from
9:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Construction would not occur on Sundays or City-observed holidays.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
SITE PLANFIGURE 3.0-10100500 Feet8.A.iPacket Pg. 128Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FIGURE 3.0-2
Source: Hanna-Brunetti, 3/17.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
RETAINING WALL LOCATIONFIGURE 3.0-3Retaining Wall8.A.iPacket Pg. 130Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT
DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in
their respective subsections:
4.1 Aesthetics
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
4.3 Air Quality
4.4 Biological Resources
4.5 Cultural & Tribal Resources
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.11 Mineral Resources
4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.13 Population and Housing
4.14 Public Services
4.15 Recreation
4.16 Transportation/Traffic
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
• Environmental Checklist – The environmental checklist, as recommended by CEQA,
identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column of the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question.
The sources are identified at the end of this section.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection discusses the project’s impact as it relates to the
environmental checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are
identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a
significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section15370). Each impact is numbered using an
alphanumeric system that identifies the environmental issue. For example, Impact HAZ-1
denotes the first potentially significant impact discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous
Materials section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they
address. For example, MM NOI-2.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the second
impact in the Noise section.
Important Note to the Reader
The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry
Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)]
confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on
the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, the
evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on
impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing
environmental hazards.
The City of Gilroy currently has policies that address existing conditions (e.g., air quality, noise, and
hazards) affecting a proposed project, which are also addressed in this section. This is consistent
with one of the primary objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide objective
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
information to decision-makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA Guidelines
and the courts are clear that a CEQA document (e.g., EIR or Initial Study) can include information of
interest even if such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by CEQA.
Therefore, where applicable, in addition to describing the impacts of the project on the environment,
this chapter will discuss Planning Considerations that relate to policies pertaining to existing
conditions. Such examples include, but are not limited to, locating a project near sources of air
emissions that can pose a health risk, in a floodplain, in a geologic hazard zone, in a high noise
environment, or on/adjacent to sites involving hazardous substances.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista or degrade the existing visual
character in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan
Area (GP Policy 1.07) or the hillside areas
(GP Policy 1.16, GP Policy 12.04)?
1-3
b) Substantially damage scenic resources
viewed from Hecker Pass Highway or
Pacheco Pass Highway (GP Policy 6.01,
GP Policy 12.04)?
1-3
c) Substantially damage scenic resources
viewed from Uvas Park Drive, Santa
Teresa Boulevard, or Miller Avenue from
First Street to Mesa Road (GP Policy
6.02)?
1-3
d) Substantially damage scenic resources
(farmland and surrounding hills) viewed
from Highway 101 (GP Policy 6.03,
Action 1-H)?
1-3
e) Result in unattractive entrances at the
principal gateways to the City (north and
south Monterey Street, Highway
152/Hecker Pass Highway, Highway
152/Pacheco Pass, north and south Santa
Teresa Boulevard, and at the Highway 101
interchanges at Masten, Buena Vista,
Leavesley, and Tenth Street) (GP Policy
1.10 and Action 1-H)
1-3
f) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1-3
g) Include or require a wall or fence higher
than seven feet above the existing grade at
the property line?
1-3
4.1.2 Existing Setting
The project site is 8.56-acres of undeveloped open space consisting of mixed woodland sloping down
to the north toward Uvas Creek (see Photos 1 – 7). Mature trees and shrubs are present throughout
the entirety of the site. A recreational paved path terminates at the southern boundary of the project
site.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
The project site and neighboring property to the west are a contiguous area of open space bounded by
residential neighborhoods and Las Animas Elementary School. The residences are two stories in
height and include a variety of modern architectural styles. The Las Animas Elementary School is
located along Greenfield Drive, just west of the project site.
Photo 1: View of project site facing northwest, and the terminus of Riverview Circle.
Photo 2: Photo of project site facing southwest with residences of Village Place seen
in the background.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Photo 3: View of project site facing east towards Uvas Creek.
Photo 4: Pedestrian pathway adjacent to Greenfield Circle/Village Place, facing east.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 17 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Photo 5: View of project site facing west.
Photo 6: View of project site from western boundary facing east.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Photo 7: View of project site facing southeast with residences on Riverview Circle in
the background.
4.1.3 Impact Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or degrade the existing visual character
in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area (GP Policy 1.07) or the hillside areas (GP Policy 1.16,
GP Policy 12.04)?
The project site is not located in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area nor is it located in a hillside
area. The project is not located in an area that has been designated as a scenic vista for the City
of Gilroy. (No Impact)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources viewed from Hecker Pass Highway or Pacheco Pass
Highway (GP Policy 6.01, GP Policy 12.04)?
The project site is not visible from either Hecker Pass Highway or Pacheco Pass Highway. (No
Impact)
c) Substantially damage scenic resources viewed from Uvas Park Drive, Santa Teresa
Boulevard, or Miller Avenue from First Street to Mesa Road (GP Policy 6.02)?
Although the project site is located in the vicinity of Uvas Park Drive, Santa Teresa Boulevard,
and Miller Avenue, the site is generally not visible from these roadways due to intervening trees
and development. The project site is located adjacent to an existing residential subdivis ion and
the subdivision of the proposed project site would not represent a change in the visual character
of hillsides or other scenic resources in the project area that are visible from these roadways.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
d) Substantially damage scenic resources (farmland and surrounding hills) viewed from
Highway 101 (General Plan Policy 6.03, Action 1-H)?
The project site is located approximately one mile west of U.S. Highway 101 and the project site
is not discernable from the highway. The project site is located adjacent to an existing residential
subdivision and the subdivision of the proposed project site would not represent a change in the
visual character of hillsides or other scenic resources in the project area that are visible from the
Highway. (Less Than Significant Impact)
e) Result in unattractive entrances at the principal gateways to the City (north and south
Monterey Street, Highway 152/Hecker Pass Highway, Highway 152/Pacheco Pass, north
and south Santa Teresa Boulevard, and at the Highway 101 interchanges at Masten, Buena
Vista, Leavesley, and Tenth Street) (GP Policy 1.10 and Action 1-H)?
The project site is not located at one of the principle gateways to the City. (No Impact)
f) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
The project is a subdivision of an 8.56 acre site into 14 single-family residential lots and
construction of 14 residential homes at a later time. The addition of 14 new homes would
introduce a nominal number of exterior light fixtures and new street lighting that would comply
with applicable Gilroy General Plan policies and City Lighting Standards. The project site is
located adjacent to an existing residential subdivision and would not generate a new source of
substantial light or glare. The project, therefore, would not adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area (Less Than Significant Impact)
g) Include or require a wall or fence higher than seven feet above the existing grade at the
property line?
The project site includes construction of two 5-foot tall (maximum height) retaining walls along
the side boundaries of Lots 9 and 14, and extending behind the building envelopes of lots 9 – 14
facing toward the creek and riparian area. The walls would be stepped to maintain existing grade
downslope to reduce grading. Six feet of separation would be provided between the walls in
order to allow landscaping to be planted and soften the appearance of the wall; which is
anticipated to be recommended as a condition of project approval. Open view fencing is also
anticipated to be constructed to along the rear yard areas, and would be recommended as a
condition of tentative map approval. The project does not include any walls or fencing higher
than seven feet above the existing grade at the property line. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.1.4 Conclusion
Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact on aesthetic resources. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use
(projects requiring a legislative act, such as
zoning changes, annexation to the City, urban
service area amendments, etc.)?
2, 5
b) Conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
2
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
2, 4
d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
2
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1, 2
4.2.2 Impact Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map, the site is considered
“Other Land” and does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance. (No Impact)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is located within the City limits, is currently zoned for low density residential,
and is not under a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or
timberland zoned Timberland Production?
The project site does not contain forest or timberland resources and the proposed project would
not conflict with zoning for such resources. (No Impact)
d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site does not contain forest resources and the proposed project would not concert
forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Existing residential and future residential uses are located south and east of the project site and
the site is within the City limits. The project would not result in impacts to designated farmland
or forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
4.2.3 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in impacts to agricultural or forestry resources. (No
Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.3 AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Construction Report
prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in April 2018. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix
A of this Initial Study.
4.3.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Clean Air Plan
(BAAQMD CAP)?
1, 6, 7
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? BAAQMD indicates that
any project that would individually have a
significant air quality impact would also be
considered to have a significant cumulative air
quality impact.
1, 6 - 8
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
1, 6 - 8
d) Expose sensitive receptors (residential areas,
schools, hospitals, nursing homes) to
substantial pollutant concentrations (CO and
PM10), as determined in b. above?
1, 6 - 8
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1
4.3.2 Existing Setting
Federal and State
Air Quality Overview
Federal, state, and regional agencies regulate air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin,
within which the proposed project is located. At the federal level, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its
subsequent amendments. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency that
regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality
laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 23 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants
The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for six
common air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”): particulate matter (PM), ground-level
ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA and the CARB have
adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect
public health and the climate.
Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are
determined for each air pollutant. “Attainment” status for a pollutant means that a given air district
meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet state or
federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), nor
does it meet state standards for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The Bay Area is considered in
attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.2
Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter (Local Community Risks)
Besides criteria pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively
low concentrations in ambient air; however, exposure to low concentrations over long periods can
result in increased risk of cancer and/or adverse health effects. TACs are primarily regulated through
state and local risk management programs. These programs are designed to eliminate, avoid, or
minimize the risk of adverse health effects from exposures to TACs. A chemical becomes a
regulated TAC in California based on designation by the California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Diesel exhaust, in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM), is the
predominant TAC in urban air and accounts for roughly 60 percent of the total cancer risk associated
with TACs in the Bay Area. Other TACs found in urban air include lead, benzene and
formaldehyde.
Impacts from the Project
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may
have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead
Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Gilroy
has carefully considered the thresholds updated by BAAQMD in May 2017 and regards these
thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. The
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality thresholds used in this analysis are identified in Table 4.3-1 below.
2 BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-
climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 24 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Table 4.3-1: Thresholds of Significance Used in Air Quality Analyses
Pollutant
Construction Operation
Average Daily
Emissions (pounds)
Average Daily
Emissions (pounds)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons)
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
Fugitive Dust
(PM10/PM2.5)
Implement Best
Management Practices None None
Risk and Hazards for
New Sources and
Receptors (Project)
Same as operational
threshold
• Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in one million
• Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard
Index (chronic or acute)
• Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.3 µ/m3
(Zone of influence: 1,000-foot radius from
property line of source or receptor)
Risk and Hazards for
New Sources and
Receptors (Cumulative)
Same as operational
threshold
• Increased cancer risk of >100 in one million
• Increased non-cancer risk of > 10.0 Hazard
Index (chronic or acute)
• Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.8 µ/m3
(Zone of influence: 1,000-foot radius from
property line of source or receptor)
Sources: BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report (2009) and BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines (dated May 2017).
1 For stationary source projects, modeling for CO concentrations is only required for projects emitting 100 tons
per year or more of CO. Projects emitting less are assumed to not exceed the CO concentration threshold.
4.3.3 Impact Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The most recent clean air plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The proposed project would
not conflict with the 2017 CAP because it would have emissions below BAAQMD impact
thresholds (see Table 4.3-1) and would improve pedestrian facilities within the area. Because the
project would not exceed the BAAQMD impact thresholds, it is not required to incorporate
project-specific control measures listed in the 2017 CAP. Further, implementation of the project
would not inhibit BAAQMD or partner agencies from continuing progress toward attaining state
and federal air quality standards and eliminating health-risk disparities from exposure to air
pollution among Bay Area communities, as described within the 2017 CAP.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 25 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Table 4.3-2: 2017 CAP Applicable Control Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency with Measure Intent
Transportation Measures
TR9 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and
Facilities: Encourage planning for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general
and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths
and bicycle parking facilities.
The project would also include construction of a
twelve foot-wide Class 2 recreational trail in the
northern portion of the project site along the south
side of Uvas Creek. The trail would be constructed
per City of Gilroy standards and would connect to
an existing Class I bicycle path located along
Riverview Circle, directly east of the project site.
The project site is located in an area that is currently served by pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities. Future residential development would be consistent with the control measure listed in
Table 4.3-2. As discussed below in further detail, (see discussion under checklist item “b”),
future residential development would not exceed the BAAQMD screening levels for operational
and construction air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Operational Criteria Pollutants
Table 4.3-3 below contains the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines screening level
sizes for various land use types/development. The screening levels were developed to provide a
conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant air
quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then a detailed air
quality assessment of a project’s air pollutant emissions does not need to be prepared and the
project’s air quality impacts are considered less than significant. As described in Section 3.0
Project Description, project implementation would result in the construction of 14 single -family
residences. As summarized in Table 4.3-3, the single-family screening level for operational and
construction criteria pollutants are 325 dwelling units and 114 dwelling units, respectively.
Table 4.3-3: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Size
Land Use Type Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size
Construction Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size
Single-family 325 du (NOx) 114 du (ROG)
Below screening threshold?
Yes Yes
Since the proposed 14 single family residences are below the operational and construction criteria
pollutant screening size, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
air quality violation. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Construction Criteria Pollutants and Dust
Construction activities such as earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over
exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that
affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas
emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-water-based paints, thinners, some insulating materials,
and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the
photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. It is anticipated that most construction, or at
least the portion involving diesel equipment, would occur in 2019.
BAAQMD has established screening thresholds for the evaluation of a project’s emissions of
criteria pollutants during construction. If a project is below the screening threshold size, it can be
assumed the project would not result in a significant impact related to construction criteria
pollutant emissions. The screening threshold for single family residences is 114 dwelling units.
The project proposes to construct 14 single family residences and is therefore below the
screening threshold.
For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends the implementation of Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures, whether or not construction related emissions exceed applicable thresholds
of significance for construction emissions. The proposed project includes basic construction
mitigation measures, listed as best management practices (BMPs) for the purposes of this Initial
Study (recommended by BAAQMD), to reduce project construction dust impacts. These
measures are considered project conditions by the City and are listed below:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 27 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
With implementation of the above best management practices, the project would have a less than
significant dustfall emissions related to construction. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction TACs
CARB identifies particulate matter from diesel fueled engines as a TAC. The health risks from
TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Typically, if heavy
equipment use does not occur within 300 feet of the same receptor for six months or more, then
the associated health risk is considered less than significant. The proposed project will require
the use of various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment.
Estimated Cancer Risk and Hazards
The air quality report evaluated the maximum-modeled diesel particulate matter (DPM and
particulate matter (PM2.5) at the 1) maximum affected residence, 2) the Las Animas Elementary
School, and 3) Gilroy High School. The modeling showed the maximum DPM concentration
occurred at a single-family residence adjacent to the southeastern project site boundary. The
results of the modeling were then used to compute the maximum increase cancer risk. The
receptors (or locations of sensitive land uses) where the highest impacts occur is referred to as the
maximally exposed individual (MEI).3
Results of the air quality modeling indicate that the maximum increased cancer risk would be
12.3 in one million, assuming infant exposure (at the Residential MEI) and 0.2 in one million for
an adult exposure. The maximum cancer risk at the Las Animas Elementary School and Gilroy
High School would be 0.07 and 0.05 in one million, respectively. The maximum residential
excess cancer risk would be above the significance threshold of 10.0 in one million , resulting in a
significant impact. (Significant Impact)
Impact AIR-1: Project construction activities would result in a significant community risk
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM AIR-1.1: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment
used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average of at
least 30 percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible
plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
• All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower
and operating on the site for more than two days shall meet, at a minimum,
3 The impacts in terms of cancer risk, hazards and PM2.5 are computed at the MEI using BAAQMD-recommended methods.
The cancer risk calculations are based on applying the BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the TAC
concentrations. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 28 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or
equivalent.
• Generator used to provide power shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA
particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Or
their usage shall be limited to 100 hours total.
The construction contractor could use other measures to minimize construction period DPM
emission to reduce the estimated cancer risk below the thresholds. The use of equipment that
includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters4 or alternatively-fueled equipment
(i.e., non-diesel) could meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust
devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City
and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant. MM AIR-1.1 would
reduce community risk impacts from TAC exposure to a less than significant level. (Less Than
Significant Level with Mitigation Incorporated)
Estimated Annual PM2.5 Concentration
The maximum-modeled annual PM2.5 concentration, which is based on combined exhaust and
fugitive dust emissions, would be 0.08 μg/m3. This maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would
be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of greater than 0.3 μg/m3. The location of the
receptor with the maximum PM2.5 concentration would be the same as where the maximum
cancer risk would occur, as described above. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Non-Cancer Hazards
The maximum modeled annual residential DPM concentration (i.e., from construction exhaust)
would be 0.075 μg/m3. The maximum computed HI based on this DPM concentration is 0.02,
which is lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a HI greater than 1.0. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors?
Non‐attainment pollutants of concern for the San Francisco Bay Air Basin are ozone, PM10 and
PM2.5. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the
emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable.
If a project exceeds the significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively
considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air
quality conditions. As discussed above (see discussion under checklist item “b”), future
residential development of the project site would not exceed the screening leve ls for construction
and operational criteria pollutants. Future construction of the site would be required to
implement BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for dust control, as described in checklist
item “b”. For these reasons, future residential development of the project site would not result in
4 California Air Resources Board. Verification Procedure – Currently Verified. Accessed on July 9th, 2018.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 29 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is
classified as non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard,
including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors are groups of people that are more affected by air pollution that others.
CARB identifies children under 15, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular
and chronic respiratory diseases as persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution.
Locations that may contain a high concentration of t hese sensitive population groups include
residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools.
The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located to the south and southeast
along Greenfield Drive, Alta Oak Way, and Village Place. Gilroy High School is to the north
and northeast of the project site, across Uvas Creek. Las Animas Elementary School is southwest
of the site, opposite Greenfield Drive at Charles Lane.
As described in checklist item “b”, project construction period would result in a significant TAC
community impact, however, with implementation of best management practices during
construction and MM AIR-1.1, the project would have a less than significant impact to sensitive
receptors in the area. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No new stationary odor sources are anticipated as part of future development of the site with
residential uses. While construction activities can create odors, odors during construction would
be temporary and would not affect a substantial number of people. The proposed project is a
residential subdivision and would not be a source of objectionable odors. (No Impact)
4.3.4 Conclusion
With incorporation of best management practices and MM AIR-1.1, the project would have a less
than significant air quality impact. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Arborist Report prepared by Hort Science in
February 2017, a Biological Constraints Report prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates in February
2017, and a Category 2 Stream Assessment prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates in October 2017.
The reports are included in this Initial Study as Appendices B-1, B-2, and B-3, respectively.
4.4.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
1-2, 9-11
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW
or USFWS?
1-2, 9-11
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1-2, 9-11
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1-2, 9-11
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
1-2, 9-11
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1-2, 9-11
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 31 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.4.2 Impacts Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) is a conservation program intended to promote the
recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while
accommodating planned growth in approximately 500,000 acres of southern Santa Clara County.
The SCVHP is a regional partnership between six Local Partners (the County of Santa Clara,
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the cities of
San José, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill) and two Wildlife Agencies (the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
The SCVHP identifies and preserves land that provides important habitat for endangered and
threatened species. The land preservation is intended to mitigate for the environmental impacts
of planned development, public infrastructure operations, and maintenance activities, as well as
to enhance the long-term viability of endangered species.
The following conditions found in the SCVHP are applicable to the proposed project:
Table 4.4-1:
SCVHP Conditions and Project Applicability
Condition Project Applicability and Justification
Condition 1. Avoid direct impacts
on legally protected plant and
wildlife species
Applicable. Applies to all projects.
Condition 3. Maintain hydrologic
conditions and protect water
quality
Applicable. Applies to all projects. The Project
will not directly impact a stream channel or
riparian habitat. The construction of a small
portion of the proposed Class 2 trail would occur
within the SCVHP riparian buffer (see Condition
11 below), which is an allowed exemption.
Condition 10. Fuel buffer Applicable. The Project proposes to construct
dwellings within an oak woodland land cover
type, which requires that at least 30 ft of area
around each house be cleared of brush,
flammable vegetation, or combustible growth.
Landscaping will be designed to meet this
condition, which allows preserved individual
trees and landscaping plants if these are “well-
pruned and maintained so as to effectively
manage fuels and not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire…to a dwelling or structure”.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 32 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Table 4.4-1:
SCVHP Conditions and Project Applicability
Condition Project Applicability and Justification
Such landscaping would also be consistent with
the City of Gilroy’s Consolidated Landscape
Policy.
Condition 11. Stream and riparian
setbacks
Applicable. A visual of the SCVHP-required
riparian setback buffer is provided in Figure 4.4-
1. All aspects of the Project will adhere to this
condition with the exception of the construction
of a portion of Class 2 trail. Recreational trails
are exempt from Condition 11 (see Chapter 6 of
the SCVHP) and may be constructed within
stream and/or riparian setbacks. Grading
encroachment into the setback has been avoided
through placement of retaining walls behind
building pads for lots 9-14. (Refer to Figure 4.4-
1).
Condition 12. Wetland and pond
avoidance and Minimization
Applicable. The Project would not directly
impact wetlands, but all covered projects are
required to comply with this condition to avoid
indirect impacts to wetlands and streams
downstream of the project.
Condition 16. Least Bell’s vireo Applicable. The Project site is located within an
area mapped as potentially suitable by the
SCVHP.
Condition 17. Tricolored blackbird Applicable. The Project site is located within
habitat mapped as potentially suitable by the
SCVHP.
Special-Status Plant and Animal Species
The project site is located on 8.56-acres of undeveloped open space. Future development on the
site would convert the following land cover types to residential development: mixed riparian
woodland and forest (1.66 acres), coast live oak woodland and forest (2.86 acres), California
annual grassland (3.61 acres), and ornamental woodland (0.01 acres). Approximately 0.44 acres
of riverine (perennial stream) is mapped on the project site but would not be impacted from
future development.
As described in Table 4.4-1, the project site is located within a habitat mapped as potentially
suitable for Least Bell’s vireo and Tricolored blackbird (Conditions 16 and 17). The project
would be required to comply with Conditions 16 and 17 of the SCVHP, and impacts to these
species would be less than significant.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 33 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Tree-Nesting Raptors and Other Migratory Birds
The trees on and adjacent to the project site could provide nesting habitat for birds, including
migratory birds and raptors. In particular, suitable habitat for Least Bell’s vireo and the
Tricolored Blackbird was identified as occurring on the project site. Nesting birds are among the
species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and
Wildlife Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 2800. Development of the site during the nesting
season (i.e., February 1 to August 31) could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or
nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or
loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting
raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute an impact. Future
construction activities such as tree removal and site grading that disturb a nesting bird or raptor
on-site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would also constitute an impact.
(Significant Impact)
Impact BIO-1: Project construction activities could result in impacts to nesting birds and
raptors in the project area.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-1.1: Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to the start
of construction activities, if construction activities are proposed to
commence during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) in order
to avoid impacts to nesting birds. These surveys shall be completed by a
qualified biologist no more than 14 days before construction begins
during the early part of the breeding season (February 1 through April
30) and no more than 30 days before construction begins during the
latter part of the breeding season (May 1 through August 31). During
this survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall observe if any nesting
birds are within the project area.
MM BIO-1.2: If an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by
construction, the ornithologist shall designate an adequate buffer zone to
be established around the nest, in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The buffer would ensure that nests
shall not be disturbed during project construction.
MM BIO-1.3: The applicant shall submit a report indicating the results of the pre-
construction survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
With incorporation of MM BIO-1.1 – 1.3, potential impacts to nesting raptors and/or other
migratory birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 34 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Impacts to Special-Status Species not Covered by the SCVHP
Project construction activities may disturb non-special-status species on-site, including large bat
maternity colonies or roosts and San Francisco dusky footed woodrats. (Significant Impact)
Impact BIO-2: Project construction activities could result in impacts to large bat
maternity colonies or roosts.
Mitigation Measures: The project would be required to implement the following mitigation
measures to reduce potential impacts to bats on or near the project site to a less than significant
level:
MM BIO-2.1: Bat Pre-activity Survey. Prior to any removal of trees 12 inches or greater
in diameter at 4.5 feet above grade, a pre-activity survey for roosting bats
will be conducted within the impact area. The survey will be conducted
by a qualified bat biologist. No activities that would result in disturbance
of active bat roosts will proceed prior to the completed survey. If no
active roosts or maternity colonies are found, then no further action is
warranted. If a large maternity colony or bat roost is presented, MM
BIO-2.2 or 2.3 shall be implemented.
MM BIO-2.2: Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts, if an occupied bat roost is found in
a tree that would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the
Project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the tree. If the
roost is unoccupied at the time of the survey, the City may choose to
install bat exclusion devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of
the structure prior to the onset of the proposed activity. If avoidance is
not feasible, MM BIO-2.3 shall be implemented.
MM BIO-2.3: Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active non-
breeding pallid bat roost cannot be avoided, the individuals will be safely
evicted between August 1 and October 15th or between February 15 and
March 15. Bats may be evicted through exclusion after notifying the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Trees with roosts that need
to be removed will first be disturbed at dusk, just prior to removal that
evening, to allows bats to escape the darker hours.
With implementation of MM BIO 2.1 – 2.3, the project would have a less than significant impact
to roosting bats within the project area. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
The project site is also located within habitat suitable for the San Francisco dusky footed
woodrat, a state-endangered species. Project construction may impact San Francisco dusky-
footed woodrats nest habitat which would result in a significant impact. (Significant Impact)
Impact BIO-3: Project construction may result in destruction or abandonment of woodrat
nests within the project footprint.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 35 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
MM BIO-3.1: Woodrat Pre-Construction Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for woodrat
nests shall be conducted within the impact footprint by a qualified
mammologist prior to the start of work. The surveys shall be conducted
between March 1st and October 31st, when woodrats are more active, and
shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the start of work.
Woodrat nests detected during the survey shall be mapped and one or
more of the following measures shall be implemented:
MM BIO-3.2: Disturbance-free Woodrat Buffers. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-
round residents. Therefore, avoidance mitigation is limited to redesigning
the project to avoid direct impacts on woodrat nests to the extent feasible.
Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer should be maintained between project
construction activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some
situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if in the opinion of a qualified
biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than the
anticipated as a result of Project activities.
MM BIO-3.3: Relocation of Woodrat Nest Materials. If active woodrat nests are found
within the Project boundary and avoidance is not feasible, then the
woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests
and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of
the woodrats. A qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest such
that all woodrats would seek refuge outside of the Project activity ar ea.
Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be removed from the site, if feasible,
these materials would be piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub. The
spacing between relocated nests shall not be less than 100 feet, unless a
qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher
densities of nests.
With implementation of MM BIO-3.1 – 3.3, project construction would not result in a significant
impact to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat habitat. (Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS?
The project site supports the following land covers identified in the SCVHP: California Annual
Grassland (0.10 acres), Riverine – Perennial Stream (0.44 acres), Mixed Oak Woodland and
Forest (0.62 acres), and Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest (1.66 acres) (refer to Figure 4.4-1).
The SCVHP provides a mechanism by which projects can mitigate impacts to designated habitats
through the payment of fees, which will then be utilized to preserve habitat elsewhere. The
project site is located within Fee Zone B “Agricultural and Valley Floor”. The 2017-2018
SCVHP fees for development of Zone B lands are $13,982 per acre. The project would be
required to pay all applicable SCVHP fees with project approval, e.g. prior to recordation of
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 36 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Final Map. Payment of SCVHP fees would reduce the project’s impacts to agricultural and
valley floor lands to a less than significant level.
Approximately 0.44 acres of the riverine land cover type occurs along the northern edge of the
project site within the active channel of Uvas Creek. The swale running parallel to Uvas Creek
to the north was evaluated by H.T. Harvey & Associates to determine if it would be identified as
a Category 2 stream under the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Based on field observation s,
including a lack of a regular incision or other indicator (e.g. hydric soils, sediment sorting,
vegetation damage etc.) of an ordinary high-water mark, the swale is not considered to be a
Category 2 stream.
The project site is set back approximately 85 feet from Uvas Creek. The project is, therefore,
compliant with the 35-foot riparian setback requirements of the City of Gilroy and the SCVHP,
and would not result in direct adverse impacts to riparian habitat or to other sensitive natural
communities. (Less Than Significant Impact)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The biological field surveys for the project did not identify any wetlands on-site. Additionally,
the project site is located outside of the 35-foot riparian setback for Uvas Creek. Project
construction would not temporarily or permanently impact any wetlands on -site. (No Impact)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The primary wildlife movement corridor in the area is Uvas Creek and associated riparian
corridor, and the project would not interfere with wildlife movement along the corridor. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
SETBACKS AND LAND COVER TYPES FIGURE 4.4-1Greenfield Dr
Rivervie
wCi
r
AltaO akW ayVillageP
l
ac
e
Legend
Project Site
Creek Centerline
Top of Bank
35-ft Riparian Setback
100-ft Category 1 Stream Setback
250-ft Riparian Setback
5HWDLQLQJ:DOO
VHP Land Cover
California Annual Grassland (3.61 ac)
Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest (2.86 ac)
Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest (1.66 ac)
Ornamental Woodland (0.01 ac)
Perennial Stream (0.44 ac)
150 0 15075
Feet
Trail
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, Feb. 2017.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 38 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The project site has 85 trees, 28 of which are proposed for removal. A summary of the trees on-
site is in Table 4.3-1.
Table 4.3-1:
Trees On-Site
Common Name Scientific Name Total
English Walnut Juglans regia 6
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 77
Blue oak Quercus douglasii 1
Valley oak Quercus lobate 1
Total 85
Project implementation would result in the loss of up to 28 trees on the site, with 57 trees to be
preserved. Tree species to be removed include Coast live oak and Blue oak.
Section 6.0 of the City’s Consolidated Landscaping Policy states that the following trees are
designated significant 1) existing native trees (naturally occurring in species in Gilroy) six inches
or more in diameter, at a point four and one-half feet above the ground, or 2) important to the
historical or visual aspect of Gilroy. The City is in the process of codifying tree protection
measures contained in the policy. However, new codified standards have not been adopted.
Therefore, for purposes of this review the Consolidated Landscaping Policy remains the City of
Gilroy adopted threshold of significance for this impact. As such, all 28 trees to be removed are
considered significant under the Consolidated Landscaping Policy. As documented in the
arborist report, four of the 28 trees to be removed are in poor condition, and therefore would not
require mitigation. The remaining 24 trees warrant mitigation with replacement at a 3:1 ratio.
(Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Impact BIO-4: Removal of trees on-site identified as “significant”, per City of Gilroy
standards would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-4.1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a final
tree replacement plan to mitigate for proposed tree removals consistent
with Gilroy City Code Article XXXVIII (Landscaping) and Consolidated
Landscape Policy. The final plan shall identify the species, size,
numbers, and locations for the replacement trees. The tree replacement
program will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Manager
and shall be implemented with construction of the subdivision
improvements.
MM BIO-4.2: The project would also be required to implement tree preservation
measures before and during project construction for significant trees to be
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 39 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
retained. These measures shall be included on all plans. Tree protection
measures include:
Design Recommendations
1. The trees identified for preservation shall be established and plotted
on all plans (including but not limited to demolition, improvement,
utility, drainage, grading, landscape and irrigation plans), subject to
review and comment by the Consulting Arborist.
2. Changes to plans shall be subject to review and comment by the
Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts.
3. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around each tree to
be preserved. Specific TPZ zones are specifically required for the
following trees located within the area of development:
Tree No. TPZ
#8 5’ North. Dripline in all other directions.
#19 5’ North and West. Dripline in all other
directions.
#31 5’ South. Dripline in all other directions.
#36, 37, 38 10’ West. Dripline in all other directions.
4. TPZ’s for trees not listed above shall be established at the dripline or
a 10-foot radius, whichever is greater.
5. Underground services and utilities, including subdrains, water and
sewer, shall be routed around the TPZ. Where encroachment cannot
be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or
tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize
root injury.
6. All temporary access roads and staging for materials, equipment, etc.,
shall remain outside of TPZ’s.
7. Herbicides must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
8. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur
within the TPZ.
Pre-construction Treatments
9. Per the City’s Consolidated Landscape Policy, policies 6.2 and 6.3,
the developer shall hire a certified consulting arborist for the entire
span of the project. All arborist recommendations shall be drafted on
the final construction, grading, or landscape plans.
10. The consulting arborist shall sign the final landscape plans
authorizing this plan is consistent with the recommendations made in
the arborist report.
11. The construction superintendent shall meet with the Consulting
Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree
protection.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 40 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
12. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree
Protection Zone prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall
be 6’ high chain link, mounted to steel posts firmly driven into the
ground or on stanchions fastened securely with rebar staples 12”
deep, as required by the City. Fences are to remain until all grading
and construction is completed.
13. Trees recommended for preservation may require clearance pruning
for construction. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified
Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI
Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices -
- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
14. Structures and underground features to be removed within the Tree
Protection Zone shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from
outside the Tree Protection Zone. The consultant shall be on-site
during all operations within the Tree Protection Zone to monitor
demolition activity.
15. Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the Tree Protection
Zone.
16. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well
as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting
birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be
scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys
should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be
involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.
During Construction
1. Prior to beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity of
trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting
Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes,
storage areas and tree protection measures.
2. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within
the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and
monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
3. Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to
encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the
Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by
manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw.
The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required.
4. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be
evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that
appropriate treatments can be applied.
5. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to
sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw.
6. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences
define a specific Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree or group of
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 41 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed.
Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the
Consultant.
7. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside
fenced areas at all times.
8. Prior to grading, pad preparation and excavation work trenching may
require root pruning outside of the TPZ. The Consulting Arborist
shall identify where root pruning is required prior to the start of work.
Roots shall be cleanly cut to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall
be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a
saw, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp
blades, or other approved root pruning equipment.
9. No materials, chemicals, debris or equipment shall be dumped or
stored within the TPZ.
10. Any tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be
performed by a Certified Arborist.
Post Construction
1. Trees preserved and replacement trees shall be monitored following
construction of site improvements to assure the health of trees post
construction. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest
management, replanting and irrigation may be required.
Implementation of MM BIO-4.1 and 4.2 will reduce impacts to tree species to a less than
significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site is located within the Habitat Plan study area and would be subject to all
applicable Habitat Plan fees. The project site is considered a covered project under the SCVHP
and is located within Fee Zone B “Agricultural and Valley Floor”. The 2017-2018 SCVHP fees
for development of Zone B lands are $13,982 per acre.
Nitrogen deposition from vehicular exhaust is known to have damaging effects on many of the
serpentine plants in the Habitat Plan area, as well as the host plants that support the federally
endangered Bay checkerspot butterfly. Nitrogen tends to be efficiently recycled by the plants and
microbes in infertile soils such as those derived from serpentine, so that fertilization impacts
could persist for years and result in cumulative habitat degradation. Mitigation for the impacts of
nitrogen deposition upon serpentine habitat and the Bay checkerspot butterfly can be correlated
to the amount of new vehicle trips that a project is expected to generate. Fees collected under the
Habitat Plan for new vehicle trips can be used to purchase conse rvation land for the Bay
checkerspot butterfly. The project would be required to provide a nitrogen deposition fee of
$44.60 for each single-family residence constructed. With payment of the SCVHP fees and
nitrogen deposition fees, the project would not conflict with the adopted HCP, NCCP, or other
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 42 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.4.3 Conclusion
Conformance with the General Plan Policies, SCVHP requirements, State and federal laws, and
mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 will ensure that biological impacts from project
implementation would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 43 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.5 CULTURAL & TRIBAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based in part, on an Archaeological Literature Search prepared for the
site by Holman & Associates in September 2013. The report is attached as Appendix C to this Initial
Study.
4.5.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
1-3, 12
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
1-3, 12
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
1-3, 12
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
1-3, 12
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
1-3, 12
2. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying this
criteria, the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe
shall be considered.
1-3, 12
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 44 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.5.2 Existing Setting
4.5.3 Impact Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource?
The project site is undeveloped open space. There are no historic resources on or adjacent to the
site. (No Impact)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource?
An archaeological literature review was completed at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC
file no. 13-0439) on September 16, 2013. There are no archaeological sites recorded on the
project site, but there are several recorded within a quarter mile of the site. Scl-85 and 86 are
recorded within 100 feet of the northeast corner of the site near Thomas Road. Three additional
prehistoric sites, Scl-243, 244 and 639, are found on the edge of Santa Teresa Road in the
vicinity of Babbs Canyon.
A visual inspection of the project site was completed on September 17, 2013. No evidence of
cultural resources was observed on the site.
Although the project site does not contain known archaeological deposits, the site may contain
unknown archaeological deposits due to its location adjacent to Uvas Creek. Future construction
activities on the site could significantly impact cultural resources, if they are encountered. The
City requires the following standard conditions to reduce potential impacts to archaeological
resources to a less than significant level
Standard Conditions: The following standard permit conditions will apply to future Planning
permits for development of the site to reduce or avoid impacts to subsurface cultural resources:
• If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth‐moving, grading, or
construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) at of
the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional
archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If a monitoring
professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be noti fied immediately and a
qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at Developer’s expense) to evaluate
the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and
implemented by the responsible party.
Implementation of standard conditions will ensure future development of the site with residential
uses will not significantly impact archaeological resources. (Less Than Significant Impact)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic
feature?
There are no known paleontological resources and no unique geologic features on the p roject site.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 45 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
However, this does not preclude the possibility that resources are encountered during
construction activities. The following Standard Condition would therefore, be required to reduce
or avoid potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources:
Standard Conditions:
• In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or
paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery
and a qualified professional or paleontologist shall examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis
of any significant materials.
Implementation of standard conditions will ensure future development of the site with residential
uses will not significantly impact paleontological resources. (Less Than Significant Impact)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
While there are no records that the site has ever been used for cemetery purposes, it is possible
that human remains could be discovered during project construction, specifically during any
grading or trenching activities. The following standard conditions would apply to future
development of the project site to reduce or avoid potential impacts related to the discovery of
human remains:
Standard Conditions:
• Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human
remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the
site within a 50-foot radius of the remains or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall
make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the
deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the
disposition of the remains pursuant to the State law, the landowner shall re-inter the
human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. (Less Than Significant Impact)
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is:
1) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources, 2) determined to be a significant resource to a California
Native American tribe.
As described above, a review of the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical
Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 46 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
project site. To date, no California Native American tribes that are or have been traditionally
culturally affiliated with the project vicinity have requested notification from the City of Gilroy
regarding projects in the area and their effects on a tribal cultural resource . The project,
therefore, is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect on a tribal cultural resource.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
4.5.4 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in impacts to cultural or tribal resources. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 47 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by UPC,
LLC for the project in August 2013. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix D to this Initial
Study.
4.6.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault (refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42)?
1-3, 13
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1-3, 13
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1-3, 13
4. Landslides? 1-3, 13
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
1-3, 13
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1-3, 13
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building
Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
1-3, 13
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
1-3, 13
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 48 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.6.2 Impact Discussion
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: 1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, 2) strong seismic
ground shaking, 3) seismic-related ground failure, or 4) landslides?
The project site is not located within a fault rupture zone or in a landslide hazard zone area. The
nearest active fault is the Sargent fault, located about two miles to the southwest. Other active
faults in the vicinity of the site include the Calaveras fault, approxima tely five miles to the
northeast and the San Andreas fault, located about six miles southwest.
Due to the proximity of the site to the Sargent fault and other active faults, it is likely that the site
will experience strong ground shaking from a moderate to severe earthquake The project would
be required to prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic activity, the project would be built using
standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. Building design and construction at
the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of a design -level
geotechnical investigation, which will be included in a report to the City. The geotechnical
investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to issuance of a grading
permit of Public Works clearance. The structural designs for the proposed development shall
account for repeatable horizontal ground accelerations. The buildings shall meet the
requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes, including the 2016 California Building
Code, as adopted or updated by the City. The project shall be designed to reduce the risk to life
or property to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Building Code.
With implementation of recommendations identified in the design-level geotechnical report and
compliance with the California Building Code, the project would not exacerbate existing
geologic hazards on the project site. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Soil Erosion
The proposed subdivision and future residential development of the site would disturb the ground
and expose soils, thereby, increasing the potential for wind or water-related erosion and
sedimentation at the site until construction is complete. The City’s NPDES General Permit for
construction, urban runoff policies, and the Municipal Code are the primary means of enforcing
erosion control measures. Future construction activities would be subject to the requirements of
the General Permit, City’s urban runoff policies, and the Municipal Code and, therefore, the
future development would have a less than significant soil erosion impact. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 49 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid
during strong ground shaking from a major earthquake. The geotechnical report did not find
evidence of historic ground failure due to liquefaction at the site . The project site’s risk for
liquefaction is therefore, considered to be low. The project site is not located in an area subject
to landslides
The project site slopes from a significantly wooded knoll at the end of Greenfield Drive,
downward to the north toward Uvas Creek; with an overall drop in elevation in excess of 80 feet.
The area of residential lot development would be within the more significant sloped portions of
the site, and setback from the creekbank. As noted in the project description the site includes a
small amount of cut and 20,721 cubic yards of fill. Excavation generally is less than two-feet in
depth which occurs at the entry to the site to extend Greenfield Drive into the development. The
more significant amounts of fill are proposed for the downslope lots and street; with fill in lots 3-
14 generally ranging from 1 to 12 feet. The depth of fill varie s greatly across the lots, as
necessary to create level building pads, roads and drainage improvements.
The existing slopes do not show signs of significant instability. Proposed cut and fill slopes
would be designed to keep the project from adding slope instability during construction. As
described in response a), the project would be constructed in conformance with the design-level
geotechnical report and California Building Code, potential impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code
(2007), creating substantial risks to life or property?
The relatively flat and middle portion of the project site is covered by about two feet of light
brown to brown, medium dense silty sand/sandy silt with some clay. These soils are underlain by
highly weathered, friable to weak, gravelly sandstone, silty sandstone, and sandy siltstone, about
two feet below the surface. The southern portion of the site contains undocumented fill around
the small hill. A retaining wall uphill from the proposed 12-foot Class I trail would be
constructed to prevent soil expansion downslope towards Uvas Creek.
As described in response a), the project would prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation
and be constructed in accordance with the standard engineering practices in the California
Building Code, as adopted by the City of Gilroy. The residences shall meet the requirements of
applicable Building and Fire Codes, including the 2016 California Building Code, as adopted or
updated by the City. Adherence to the geotechnical report and applicable Building and Fire
Codes would ensure that future buildings on the site are designed properly to a ccount for the
presence of expansive soils on the site. (Less Than Significant Impact)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 50 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
The project site is located within a suburban area of Gilroy where sewers are available to dispose
wastewater from the project site. Therefore, the site will not need to support septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. (No Impact)
4.6.3 Conclusion
With adherence to recommendations in the project-specific geotechnical report and grading permit,
the project would result in less than significant geology, soils, and seismicity impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 51 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1-3, 6-7
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1-3, 6-7
4.7.2 Existing Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Air Act
The US EPA is the federal agency responsible for implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA). The US
Supreme Court in its 2007 decision in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et
al., ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has
the authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Following the court decision, EPA
has taken actions to regulate, monitor, and potentially reduce GHG emissions (primarily mobi le
emissions).
State
California Global Warming Solutions Act
Under the California Global Warming Solution Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32),
CARB has established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules
for significant sources of GHG, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change
Scoping Plan, that identifies how emission reductions will be achieved from significant GHG sources
via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions.
On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, amending the
California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to
ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by
2030. As a part of this effort, CARB is required to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to
express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CARB has
initiated the public process to update the state’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. The updated plan
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 52 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
will provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target and is anticipated to be completed and
adopted by CARB in 2017.5
Senate Bill 375 – Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed
into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional
GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035, as compared to
2005 emissions levels. The per-capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the
San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by
2035.6
Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to prepare the region’s Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) process. The SCS is
referred to as Plan Bay Area.
Originally adopted in 2013 Plan Bay Area, established a course for reducing per-capita GHG
emissions through the promotion of compact, mixed-use residential and commercial neighborhoods
near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Building upon the
development strategies outlined in the original plan, Plan Bay Area 2040 was adopted in July 2017 as
a focused update with revised planning assumptions based current demographic trends. Target areas
in the Plan Bay Area 2040 Action Plan area related to reducing GHG emissions, improving
transportation access, maintaining the region’s infrastructure, and enhancing resilience to climate
change (including fostering open space as a means to reduce flood risk and enhance air quality).
Regional
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the regional, government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine
San Francisco Bay Area counties. Several key activities of BAAQMD related to GHG emissions are
described below.
• Regional Clean Air Plans: BAAQMD and other agencies prepare clean air plans as required
under the state and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP)
focuses on two closely related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the
climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the state of California, the
2017 CAP lays the groundwork for the BAAQMD’s long-term effort to reduce Bay Area
GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease
5 California Air Resources Board. “AB 32 Scoping Plan”. 2017. Accessed: October 31, 2017. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
6 The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission
reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included
in the targets.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 53 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near-
term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines: The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended
to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and
plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of
whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the
part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The
City of Gilroy and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the
thresholds and methodology for greenhouse gas emissions developed by the BAAQMD. The
Guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, plans and procedures,
methods of analyzing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation measures, and background information.
4.7.3 Impact Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Overview of Impact Assessment
GHG emissions worldwide contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse
environmental impacts of global climate change. No single land use project could generate
sufficient GHG emissions on its own to noticeably change the global average tem perature. The
combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects in Gilroy, the entire state
of California, and across the nation and around the world, contribute cumulatively to the
phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts.
The following discussion focuses on whether project GHG emissions represent a cumulatively
considerable contribution to climate change as determined by consistency with City of Gilroy and
statewide efforts to curb GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, the projected
emissions from the assumed construction and occupancy of 14 single family residences were
estimated and compared to project-level thresholds developed by BAAQMD. The BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (revised May 2017) include quantitative thresholds for GHG
emissions.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development of the project site would result in GHG increases associated with
construction activities including operation of construction equipment and emissions from
construction workers’ personal vehicles traveling to and from the construction site.
Construction-related GHG emissions vary depending on the level of activity, length of the
construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment, and number of
personnel. Neither the City of Gilroy nor BAAQMD has established a quantitative threshold or
standard for determining whether a project's construction-related GHG emissions are significant.
Because project construction would be a temporary condition (this analysis assumes a total of 12
months) and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions that would interfere with the
implementation of AB 32, the increase in emissions would be less than significant. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 54 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 14 single family residences proposed by the project is below the BAAQMD screening level
for operational GHG emissions for single family residential dwelling units (i.e., 56 dwelling
units); therefore, future development of the project site would not result in a significant
operational GHG emissions impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed above, the State of California has an adopted Climate Change Scoping Plan for
AB32 and a Climate Change Scoping Plan for SB32, to establish statewide greenhouse gas
emissions thresholds for projects constructed and operational by the end of 2020 and 2030,
respectively. Since it is anticipated that the project would be constructed and operational prior to
the end of 2020, the project would be subject to the AB32 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2017 CAP and Plan Bay Area. The
CARB-approved AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions
intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve the environment,
reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs,
and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes recommended actions for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations a t a
statewide level, local governments play a key role in implementing many of the strategies
contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy
generation, and recycling programs. The proposed project would not conflict or otherwise
interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures identified in the AB 32 Climate Change
Scoping Plan. The project would comply with requirements of the Green Building Standards
Code, and the proposed residences would be constructed in conformance with CALGreen and
Title 24. The project, therefore, would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.7.4 Conclusion
Project implementation would have a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 55 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based in part on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil
Quality Investigation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group in September 2013. A copy of this
report is attached as Appendix E of this Initial Study.
4.8.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1-3, 14
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
1-3, 14
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1-3, 14
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
1-3, 14
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, will the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
1-3, 14
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
1-3, 14
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1-3, 14
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
1-3, 14
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 56 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.8.2 Existing Setting
Historical Uses of the Project Site
The project site was historically used as agricultural land with a residential structure located on the
southwestern portion of the site.
Current Uses of the Project Site
The existing project site is undeveloped land.
On-Site Sources of Contamination
Former Agricultural Uses,
As noted above, the project site was historically used for agricultural purposes, which could have
resulted in elevated levels of pesticide residues in the near-surface soils on the project site. Soil
sampling collected during the Phase I report for the project tested for the presence of pesticides and
metals associated with former agricultural uses. Results of the soil sampling indicated that the
detected pesticide concentrations did not exceed the respective residential California Human Health
Screening Level thresholds, and metal concentrations were found to be consistent with typical
background concentrations.
Off-Site Sources of Contamination
There are no off-site sources of contamination within the project vicinity.7
4.8.3 Impact Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Future residential development after the subdivision of the property would not result in hazardous
materials being transported, used, or disposed of in such quantities to result in a significant
hazard to the public. During construction and at the conclusion of the construction for the
subdivision, the project would not require the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
The proposed residential project would not include the storage or use of hazardous materials that
could be released into the environment in sufficient quantities to create a significant hazard.
Construction of the project would result in the disturbance of soils formerly used for agricultural
production. As described previously, soil sampling was completed on the site t o test for the
7 Cornerstone Earth Group. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil Quality Evaluation. New Hope
Property Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, California. September 10, 2013.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 57 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
presence of pesticides and metals associated with former agricultural uses. Detected pesticide
concentrations did not exceed relevant thresholds, and detected metal concentrations were
consistent with typical background levels. Project implementation, therefore, would not create a
significant hazard to the public or environment from hazardous materials. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The nearest public school to the project site is Las Animas Elementary School, located
approximately 375 feet to the southwest. Future development of the site with residences would
not use or emit significant quantities of hazardous materials. Constructed related impacts would
be the same as discussed for impact b) above. (Less Than Significant Impact)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. There were no off-site spill incidents that were reported that
would appear likely to significantly impact soil or ground water beneath the project site. (No
Impact)
e) Result in a nearby airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it within two miles of public
or private airport or airstrip. Therefore, future development of the site with residential uses
would not result in a safety hazard for people related to airport activities. (No Impact)
f) Result in a private airstrip-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it within two miles of public
or private airport or airstrip. Therefore, future development of the site with residential uses
would not result in a safety hazard for people related to airport activities. (No Impact)
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted eme rgency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Future residential development of the site would not physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan. (No Impact)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 58 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
The project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, and all plans submitted to
the City would receive fire safety plan checks from the Gilroy Community Development
Department.8 The fire plan check would include review of building materials and emergency
access to protect against fire. The open space Parcel A would be dedicated to the City or to
SCVWD for vegetation management to reduce fire risk. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.8.4 Conclusion
Future residential development of the site would not result in hazards or hazardous materials impact.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
8 City of Gilroy Community Development Department. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Glen Loma
Ranch Specific Plan. Pg. 2-126. June 10, 2005.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 59 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
1-3
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to
a level which will not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
1-3
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which will result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
1-3
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
will result in flooding on-or off-site?
1-3
e) Create or contribute runoff water which will
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1-3
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1-3
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
1-3, 15
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which will impede or redirect flood
flows?
1-3, 15
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
1-3
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1-3
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.9.2 Setting
Hydrology and Drainage
The project site is located in the Uvas-Carnadero Creek watershed. The site is undeveloped open
space, and stormwater is either absorbed on-site or flows into Uvas Creek.
Flooding and Other Hazards
The upland portion of the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain.9 The portion of the
project site adjacent to the bank of Uvas Creek is located within the designated special flood hazard
area subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance flood. According to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the majority of the project site
is mapped Zone X, areas of moderate flood hazard, between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year
floods with a one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance of flood. The remainder of the site is
located in Zone AE, areas that are inundated by a one percent annual chance flooding. The portion
of the project site mapped AE is adjacent to Uvas Creek.
Earthquake-Induced Waves and Mudflow Hazards
Due to the project site’s inland location and distance from large bodies of water (i.e., the San
Francisco Bay), it is not subject to seiche or tsunami hazards, or sea level rise. The project site is
sloped downward towards Uvas Creek and would therefore, be subject to mudflows during wet
weather events.
Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
“non-point” source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from the project site flows as sheets towards Uvas
Creek.
4.9.3 Impact Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
At the time of future residential development, construction activities (e.g., grading and
excavation) on the project site may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. When
disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain
sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system. Since project
implementation would result in disturbance to more than one acre of soil, the City would file a
Notice of Intent and Permit Registration Documents for authorization of project construction
9 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0752H.
Effective date May 18, 2009.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 61 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
activities under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit
(Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ/NPDES Permit No. CAS000002, and all amendments).
Post-Construction Water Quality Impacts
Residential development on-site would be required to comply with the City of Gilroy’s
Stormwater Management Plan, VHP requirements (Table 6-2: Aquatic Avoidance and
Minimization Measures), and the CCRWQCB’s stormwater requirements, as applicable.
Stormwater runoff from future development of the site would be required to drain into treatment
areas prior to entering the storm drainage system. Treatment facilities would be numerically
sized and would have sufficient capacity to treat the residential roof runoff prior to entering the
storm drainage system consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan. With
implementation of a stormwater control plan consistent with CCRWQCB’s stormwater
requirements, residential development on the site would have a less than significant water quality
impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a
level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
The project site is not located on a groundwater recharge zone, as identified by the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. Development on the site would not the need to pump groundwater from
the site and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. (Less Than Significant Impact)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
Residential development of the site would be required to comply with the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board’s (CCRWQCB) current stormwater requirements and would
comply with the stormwater control plan prepared for the project. Implementation of the
stormwater control plan would remove pollutants and reduce the rate and volume of runoff from
the project site, reducing the potential for erosion or siltation on- and off-site during project
construction and operation. (Less Than Significant Impact)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site?
As stated above, residential development of the site would be required to comply with the
CCRWQCB’s current stormwater requirements, which would prevent potential flooding from
surface runoff from project development. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 62 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
e) Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Project implementation would result in an increase of approximately 63,391 sf of impervious
surfaces, compared to the existing undeveloped site. Runoff on-site would be direct towards one
of nine bioretention areas on-site. Bioretention areas would convey stormwater to a 783 cubic
yard biorentention pond on-site to be treated prior to connecting to the 18-inch storm drain in
Riverview Circle. The amount of runoff generated by 14 single-family residences would
represent a marginal increase in the amount of runoff treated by the City’s storm drain system.
The City’s storm drain system would have adequate capacity to serve development of the site,
which is a part of a larger residential neighborhood and bordered by residential development to
the east and west. (Less Than Significant Impact)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
At the time of development, construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) on the project
site may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. When disturbance to underlying
soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are
ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system. Construction of the project would disturb
more than one acre of soil and, therefore, compliance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities is required. As part of
development of the proposed project, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be submitted to the
CCRWCB. Prior to initiation of construction or demolition activities a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared in accordance with the NPDES requirements. The
SWPPP would identify specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be used at the
project site to treat and control stormwater, reduce sedimentation, and prevent erosion.
Project Conditions: Conditions that shall be implemented to prevent stormwater pollution and
minimize potential sedimentation during construction include, but are not limited to the
following:
• Utilize on-site sediment control BMPs to retain sediment on the project site;
• Utilize stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks;
• Implement damp street sweeping;
• Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help control erosion during
construction; and
• Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been
completed.
The project, with the implementation of the SWPPP and project conditions, would not result in
significant construction-related water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Adherence to the NPDES General Permit guidelines would reduce potential degradation of water
quality from construction activities to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 63 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Post-Construction Water Quality Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 63,391 square
feet of impervious surface. The project would be constructed with low impact development
(LID) design strategies which include optimization of site layout to allow for more open space
and preservation of Uvas Creek. The project would also incorporate permanent and operational
source control best management practices which include marking inlets with “No Dumping
Flows to Creek” signage, designing landscape to minimize irrigation a nd runoff, and promote
surface infiltration, as described in the project’s Stormwater Control Plan. With incorporation of
post-construction operational control measures, the project would have a less than significant to
water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
A portion of the project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard area however, this
portion of the project site would not contain housing or structures. The project therefore, would
not place housing within a 100-year flood zone. (Less Than Significant Impact)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood
flows?
As described previously, the project would not be placing housing structures or substantial fill in
a 100-year flood hazard area and would not, therefore, impede or redirect flood flows from the
construction of those structures. Portions of lots 9-14 would extend to the edge of the floodplain.
However, these areas are outside of the proposed building envelopes, separated from the private
yard areas by the proposed double retaining wall system. These areas would be restricted as
unbuildable private open space to be maintained as natural landscaped areas with open fencing at
the boundary of the lots. A tentative map condition is anticipated to be required to restrict use of
this area and limit the type of fencing to open view fencing. (Less Than Significant Impact)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
The project site is approximately 200 to 280 feet above mean sea level. While the project site is
located in an area subject to inundation in the event of a complete dam failure at Uvas Reservoir,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s comprehensive dam safety program and emergency
action plan ensures public safety. Residential development on the site would not expose people
or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation from a dam failure.10
(Less Than Significant Impact)
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
10 Association of Bay Area Governments. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan. November 10, 2011.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 64 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
The project site is a steep hillside that ranges from approximately 200 to 280 feet above mean sea
level, upslope of the nearest body of water, Uvas Creek. The project site is not located within a
designated tsunami inundation zone. Future residential development of the project site, therefore,
would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. (No Impact)
4.9.4 Conclusion
With incorporation of project conditions, the project would have a less than significant impact to
hydrology and water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 65 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1-3
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1-3
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1-3
4.10.2 Existing Setting
Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
General Plan Land Use and Zoning
The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City’s General Plan. Lands designated
Low Density Residential are intended for single-family detached homes, with lot sizes ranging from
6,00 square feet to 14,500 square feet. Density on-site is limited to 3 to 7.25 dwelling unit per acre.
Appropriate uses identified in the General Plan include single-family detached homes as well as
duplexes and secondary dwelling units.
The project site is located within a (R1) Single Family Zoning District. The zoning district is
intended for provide for areas within the city that may be used for single -family and very low density
clustered housing. The average density is intended to be between 3 and 7.25 dwelling units per acre.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) is a conservation program intended to promote the
recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating
planned growth in approximately 500,000 acres of southern Santa Clara County. The SCVHP is a
regional partnership between six Local Partners (the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the cities of San José, Gilroy, and
Morgan Hill) and two Wildlife Agencies (the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
The SCVHP identifies and preserves land that provides important habitat for endangered and
threatened species. The land preservation is intended to mitigate for the environmental impacts of
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 66 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
planned development, public infrastructure operations, and maintenance activities, as well as to
enhance the long-term viability of endangered species.
SCVHP Land Designation
The project site is located within the SCVHP study area and is designated as Mixed Oak Woodland
and Forest land.
4.10.3 Impact Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
Examples of projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community
include new freeways and highways, major arterial streets, and railr oad lines. The project site is
located within an existing developed area with residences and a school. The project would
construct a 12-foot wide Class I trail to connect to the existing Class I bicycle path located along
Riverview Circle, directly east of the project site. Since the project would be located in an area
with similar uses and patterns of development, the project would not physically divide an
established community. (No Impact)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City’s General Plan and is located
within the (R1) Single Family Zoning District. The project would construct 14 single-family
residential homes, which would be consistent with both the City’s land use designation and
zoning for the site.
The northeastern portion of the project site is located within the riparian setback zone of Uvas
Creek. The City of Gilroy has a required minimum setback of 100 feet from the Uvas Creek
riparian corridor for the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area which occurs adjacent to and
immediately west of the site. Additionally, the same 100-foot setback requirement was included
for the Uvas Creek corridor within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. The project would not
place structures within the riparian setback zones and would therefore, not conflict with the City
of Gilroy’s intent of avoiding or mitigation potential environmental effects in the riparian zone of
Uvas Creek. (Less Than Significant Impact)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
The project site is on lands designated as Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest under the Santa Clara
Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP). As described in Section 3.4 Biological Resources, through
payment of applicable SCVHP development fees, the project would not result in significant
impacts to any of the covered species in the SCVHP. The project would be required to comply
with Conditions 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 of the adopted SCVHP. Additionally, the
project would be required to pay a Nitrogen Deposition Fee proportional to the number of homes
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 67 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
to be constructed. Through compliance with applicable standard SCVHP Conditions, as a
requirement of the project, and payment of the applicable fees, the project would not conflict
with the SCVHP Habitat Plan. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.10.4 Conclusion
With payment of applicable SCVHP fees and adherence to the riparian setback requirements, the
project with result in a less than significant land use impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 68 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1-3
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
1-3
4.11.2 Impact Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
The project site is not located in an area of Gilroy with known mineral resources. (No Impact)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
The project site is not located in an area of Gilroy with known mineral resources. (No Impact)
4.11.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. (No Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 69 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
4.12.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
1-3
b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1-3
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1-3
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1-3
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
1-3
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
1-3
4.12.2 Environmental Setting
Fundamentals of Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or
annoying. The objectionable nature of sound can be caused by its pitch or its loudness. A decibel
(dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the
decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect.
Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. There are several methods of
characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-weighted sound level or dBA. This
scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive.
Noise is typically expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, inclu ding: Leq, Lmax,
DNL, and CNEL. Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average
energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. The most common averaging period is
hourly but Leq can describe any series of noise events in arbitrary duration. Lmax is the maximum A-
weighted noise level during a measurement period. DNL and CNEL are described below.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 70 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in
response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background
noises are generally lower than daytime levels. Most household noise also decreases at night,
making exterior noises more noticeable. Furthermore, most people sleep at night and are very
sensitive to noise intrusion. The DNL (day/night average sound level) descriptor was developed to
account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels. The DNL divides the 24-hour day into the
daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The nighttime noise level is
weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) is another 24-hour average descriptor which includes both an evening and nighttime
weighting.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
This discussion uses Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) to quantify vibration amplitude, which is defined
as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. A PPV descriptor
with units of millimeters per second (mm/sec) or inches per second (in/sec) are used to evaluate
construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. The two primary
concerns with construction-induced vibration are the potential to damage a structure and the potential
to interfere with the enjoyment of life; these two concerns are evaluated against different vibration
limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of
0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a
function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration
levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic (e.g., minor cracking of building elements), or may
threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to a ssess the potential
for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of
vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration
that can be detrimental to a building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the
structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to
the structure.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 71 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Regulatory Setting
City of Gilroy General Plan
The following City of Gilroy General Plan outdoor noise standards are identified as permissible for
maximum indoor and outdoor day-night average noise levels.
Table 4.12-1:
City of Gilroy Permissible Maximum Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels
Land Use Category Outdoor LDN(dBA)
Residential 601
Commercial 65
Industrial 76
Notes:
1 The outdoor sound levels for residential properties shall be measured from a location which is no less than:
- 15 feet outside the rear-most household wall;
- 20 feet outside the front-most proposed household wall;
- 6 feet outside the side-most proposed household walls; and
- 10 feet outside the side-most proposed household wall when adjacent to a street
4.12.3 Impact Discussion
Thresholds of Significance
A project would result in a significant noise impact if noise levels generated by the project conflict
with adopted environmental standards or plan, if the project would generate excessive groundborne
vibration levels, or if ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors would be substantially increased
over a permanent, temporary, or periodic basis. The following criteria were used to evaluate the
significance of environmental noise resulting from project implementation:
• A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or
generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General
Plan or Municipal Code
• A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would expose
persons to excessive vibration levels. Groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec
PPV would have the potential to result in “architectural” damage to normal buildings or
railroad train vibration would exceed the Federal Transportation Authority thresholds
• A significant impact would be identified if traffic generated by the project would
substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity. A substantial increase
would occur if existing plus project noise levels would be 3 dBA Ldn or greater where
exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard (60 dBA Ldn)
or if existing plus project noise levels would be 5 dBA Ldn or greater where noise levels
would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level.
• A significant noise impact would be identified if construction related noise would
temporarily increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Hourly average noise levels
exceeding 60 dBA Leq, and the ambient by at least 5 dBA Leq, for a period greater than one
year would constitute a significant temporary noise increase at noise -sensitive residential
land uses
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 72 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Project-Generated Operational Noise
Project operational noise would include any noise that would potentially affect existing noise -
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site, such as trips to and from residences. The
project would generate approximately 11 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour trips, and 140
average daily trips. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors include the adjacent residences on the
east, west, and south boundaries of the project site. The City of Gilroy General Plan has
established a normally acceptable noise level of 60 dBA DNL at outdoor use areas of residential
land uses.
Given the few number of residences being proposed for construction relative to the entire
residential development, project implementation would not result in noticeable noise level
increases.
Construction Noise
Construction of the proposed project would generate noise and would temporarily increase noise
levels in the surrounding area and riparian corridor. The significance of noise impacts during
construction and demolition depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction
equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance betw een
construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors.
Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during the construction
of project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Typical hourly average construction
noise levels are about 75 to 80 dBA measured at a distance of 100 feet from the center of the site
during busy construction periods (e.g. earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction
noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of distance between the source and
receptor.
Construction noise impacts are more significant when construction occurs during noise-sensitive
times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when the construction occurs in
areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts extended
periods of time. Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and the size of the
development, which can be completed in a single phase, the development of the lots could be
completed in 12 months, once final map and permit approvals are obtained. Construction
activities would be audible at the existing residential uses in the vicinity of the project site.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 73 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
The following standard conditions would be included in the project to reduce construction noise
impacts on neighboring properties:
Project Conditions:
• Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM and Saturdays
between9:00 AM and 7:00 PM, with no construction on Sundays and City holidays ;
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors
when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area;
• Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project
site;
• Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers
that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
• Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists; and
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonabl e
measures be implemented to correct the problem. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Short-term vibration noise would be generated during project construction from the use of heavy
equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams). Heavy tracked vehicles (e.g.,
excavators) can also generate perceptible ground-borne vibration levels. The City of Gilroy has
not identified quantifiable vibration limits that can be used to evaluate the compatibility of land
uses with vibration levels experienced at a project site.
Future project construction would not include pile driving activities and is not anticipated to be a
source of substantial vibration. With implementation of the standard permit conditions listed in
question “a”, above, the project would not result in significant vibration impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
A permanent increase of three dBA at noise-sensitive receptors would result in a noticeable
increase in the ambient noise levels and a significant noise impact. As described in answers to
questions “a”, the project would result in an increase of 11 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak
hour trips, with a total of 140 average daily trips. Project trip generation would be nominal
relative to the traffic generated by the surrounding Glen Loma residential development. The
project, therefore, would not result in a substantial permanent impact to ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 74 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Construction noise from future development of the project site would temporarily increase
ambient noise levels in the project area. Incorporation of the standard project conditions, as
described in question “a”, would avoid potentially significant temporary or periodic construction -
related noise during future residential development of the site. (Less Than Significant Impact
e), For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project is not located within the South County Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Plan (CALUP), prepared for the San Martin Airport. San Martin Airport is located in Santa
Clara County north of the City of Gilroy boundary and over 5 miles from the project site.
Hollister Municipal Airport in San Benito County is located more than 10 miles to the southeast.
There are no public or private airports within the area that would impact the project site. (No
Impact)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no public or private airports within the area. (No Impact)
4.12.4 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in significant noise or vibration impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 75 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1-3
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1-3
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1-3
4.13.2 Impact Discussion
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
The project is the subdivision of an 8.56-acre parcel and future construction of 14 new single-
family residential homes adjacent to an existing larger residential development known as the
Glen Loma Specific Plan. The site would be accessible from within streets of the Villagio
Subdivision, via Greenfield Drive. The construction of 14 new single-family homes would
accommodate approximately 48 new residents11 and would not substantially increase the City of
Gilroy’s existing population of 55,936 persons.12 (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently undeveloped land adjacent to an existing larger residential
development, the Glen Loma Specific Plan. Subdivision of the land and construction of new
residential homes would not result in the displacement of housing. (No Impact)
11 City of Gilroy Community Development Department. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Glen Loma
Ranch Specific Plan. Pg. 1-48. June 10, 2005.
12 California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2016
– January 1, 2017. Accessed November 10, 2017.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 76 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
As stated in response to question “b”, the project site is undeveloped. Project implementation,
therefore, would not result in the displacement of people. (No Impact)
4.13.3 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to the population and housing supply
for the City of Gilroy. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 77 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
- Fire Protection?
- Police Protection?
- Schools?
- Parks?
- Other Public Facilities?
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
4.14.2 Impact Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for public services?
The project is the subdivision of an 8.56-acre undeveloped parcel and future construction of 14
single-family residential structures. The nearest fire station to the project site is the Gilroy Fire
Department, located at 7070 Chestnut Street, approximately two miles east of the site. The
nearest police station to the project site is located at 7301 Hannah Street, approximately two
miles north of the site. The nominal increase in the population (approximately 48 residents) that
would occur from project implementation would not exceed the ability for the Gilroy Fire and
Police Departments to serve the population of Gilroy. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project would be served by public schools within the Gilroy Unified School District. The
nearest schools to the project site are Las Animas Elementary School, located at 6550 Cimino
Street, approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the site; Solarsono Middle School, located at 7121
Grenache Way, approximately 2.4 miles north of the site; and Gilroy High School, located at 750
West 10th Street, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The project would generate
approximately four elementary students (kindergarten through sixth grade), two middle school
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 78 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
students (seventh and eighth grades), and two high school students.13 Given the nominal number
of students the project would be expected to generate, the project would not have a significant
impact to public schools in the area. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The nearest park to the project site is Cydney Casper Park located at Las Animas Elementary
School, approximately 375 feet southwest of the project site. The TEEC building at Christmas
Hill Park, located at 7040 Miller Avenue approximately 0.9 miles northwest of the site, has a
meeting room and multi-use area facilities. The nearest community center to the project site is
the Wheeler Community Center, located at 270 West 6th Street, approximately two miles
northeast of the project site. Given the relatively few number of residents generated from project
implementation, the project is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on the park and community
facilities in the area. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.14.3 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to public services. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
13 EMC Planning Group Inc. 2013, Gilroy General Plan 2002, California Department of Finance 2013, Gilroy
Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Report 2013.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 79 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility will occur
or be accelerated?
1-3
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
1-3
4.15.2 Impact Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated?
As described in Section 4.13 Population and Housing, the construction of 14 new single family
residences would nominally increase the total population of the City of Gilroy by approximately
48 residents. Future residential development on-site would result in a slight increase in demand
for park facilities within the City. The nearest parks to the project site include the newly
constructed Cydney Casper Park at Las Animas Elementary School (adjacent to Greenfield
Drive) and Christmas Hill Park located nearby on Miller Avenue to the west. The project would
provide over 3 acres of land for public use along Uvas Creek that includes a new trail connection.
The City has sufficient parklands for planned development in the area. Thus, the use of existing
and planned parklands by residents in the 14-lot residential subdivision would not cause any
substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of park facilities. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreatio nal
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Future residential development on-site would result in a slight increase in demand for park
facilities within the city. The project does not propose construction of recreational facilities and
no new off-site recreational facilities would be required to serve the incremental population
increase that would result from project implementation. The project would be required to comply
with City policy for parkland dedication or payment of in-lieu fees. The project, therefore, would
not result in the construction of new recreational facilities with the potentially to adversely affect
the physical environment. (Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 80 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.15.3 Conclusion
Future residential development would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 81 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
4.16.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1-3, 16
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1-3
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
1-3
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
1-3
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1-3
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
1-3
4.16.2 Existing Setting
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project area is provided by Santa Teresa Boulevard. Santa Teresa Boulevard
is a two lane high-trafficked thoroughfare extending from Morgan Hill to south Gilroy.
The project site is currently undeveloped and is not accessible by vehicles. Greenfield Drive
terminates at the southern border of the site.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 82 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks along Riverview Circle and Greenfield
Drive. There is an existing Class I bicycle path located along Riverview Circle, directly east o f the
project site.
Transit Service
Existing transit service in the project area is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA). The nearest bus route serving the project are is Route 18 which runs from the
Gilroy Transit Center to Gavilan College with a stop near the project site at Thomas & Oakbrook.
The Thomas & Oakbrook bus stop is located approximately 0.7 miles south of the project site.
4.16.3 Impact Discussion
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
The introduction of 14 new single family residences would marginally contribute to vehicle
traffic within the larger adjacent Glen Loma Ranch residential area which has approximately
1,643 residential units. Development of the project site with 14 single-family residences would
generate approximately 11 AM peak hour trips (three inbound, eight outbound), and 14 PM peak
hour trips (nine inbound, five outbound), for a total of approximately 140 average daily trips.14
Since the total trips generated are less than the Congestion Management Program (CMP)
threshold of 100 net new daily project trips, the project would not be required to prepare a traffic
impact analysis. However, as a standard City requirement all new development must pay its fair
share cost toward funding of traffic improvements required to accommodate full buildout under
the general plan (consistent with the City of Gilroy Comprehensive Fee Schedule, revi sed July 1,
2018). The current development impact fee is $11,561.00 per residential unit, which is due with
the permit request. Thus, payment of the development impact fee would ensure the project
would not conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance, or policy related to the effectiveness of the
circulation system. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways?
There are no streets within the vicinity of the project that are designated County Congestion
Management Agency roads or highways. The project, therefore, based on the low peak hour trip
generation of the project and the absence of CMP intersections in the vicinity of the site, the
project would not conflict with a congestion management program. (No Impact)
14 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Land Use 210 - Single-Family
Detached Housing. October 2017.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 83 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and does not propose to construct
buildings that would obstruct air space. The project, therefore, would not result in a change in air
traffic patterns. (No Impact)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project would construct Greenfield Circle, a thirty-six-foot-wide private street that would
provide access to all 14 residences and would connect to Greenfield Drive. The project,
therefore, would not increase hazards due to project design. The project site plan would be
reviewed by the Gilroy Fire Department to ensure that the design would be compatible with Fire
Code and would not be designed to increase hazards on-site. (No Impact)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As mentioned in the response to question “d”, the project site plan would be reviewed by the City
of Gilroy’s Fire Department for safety and adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project,
therefore, would not result in inadequate emergency access. (No Impact)
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The project proposes construction of a twelve-foot wide Class I recreational trail (constructed
separate from street) in the northern portion of the site along the south side of Uvas Creek. The
trail would be constructed per City of Gilroy standards and would connect to an existing Class I
bicycle path located along Riverview Circle, directly east of the project site. The project would
construct internal sidewalks along the new Greenfield Circle that would connect with the existing
neighborhood sidewalks. Project implementation would result in an improvement to bic ycle and
pedestrian facilities in the area.
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority provides service to the project site via Route 18 Gilroy
Transit Center to Gavilan College. Route 18 stops at Thomas & Oakbrook, approximately 0.6
miles south of the project site. Since the project would not generate a substantial increase in
residents, the project would have a less than significant impact on transit facilities. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
4.16.4 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in significant transportation related impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 84 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
1-3
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1-3
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
1-3
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
1-3
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
1-3
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
1-3
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1-3
4.17.2 Impact Discussion
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
The project site is undeveloped open space and is not currently served by utilities. Sanitary
sewer lines within the project area are owned and maintained by the City of Gilroy. Wastewater
collection is provided by the City of Gilroy and South County Regional Wastewater Authority
(SCRWA).
The project would connect to an existing sanitary sewer line in Greenfield Drive and Riverview
Circle. Wastewater from the project would be transported through existing sanitary sewer
pipelines to the South County SCRWA for treatment. The SCRWA completes tertiary treatment
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 85 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
of all wastewater to remove impurities before the effluent is released to the SCRWA’s
percolation ponds.
The project site is currently undeveloped open space. While future residential development
would increase wastewater generation on the site, the project would not exceed the Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) treatment requirements for the South County
SCRWA. (Less Than Significant Impact)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilitie s or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Water service is provided to the project area by the City of Gilroy Water Department. The
project would connect to an existing water main in Greenfield Drive. Future development of the
project site with residential uses would not substantially increase water or wastewater volumes
such that new or expanded facilities would be required. The project, therefore, would not have
a significant impact related to the provision of water and sewer service for the project. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project site is undeveloped open space and is entirely pervious. Runoff from the site
currently directly enters the ground or travels downslope towards Uvas Creek.
The project includes nine bioretention basins that would capture and treat stormwater runoff from
the site (refer to Figure 3.0-2). Stormwater would then be conveyed to existing stormwater lines
in Greenfield Drive. Future development of the site would comply with the City of Gilroy’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit, issued
by the Central Coast RWQCB. The NPDES General Construction Permit requires development
and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control project
runoff, erosion, and sedimentation from the site during and post construction. With adherence to
the NPDES General Construction permit, project implementation would remove pollutants in
runoff from the site and would reduce the rate and volume of runoff from two year storm events,
to levels that are at existing conditions. For these reasons, development of the project site would
not exceed the capacity of the existing storm drainage system serving the project area. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The project site is currently undeveloped open space. Future residential development would
generate a water demand of approximately 7,920 gallons per day for the 14 residences on the site,
which was accounted for in the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for future growth in
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 86 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
the City.15 Project implementation therefore, would not result in a significant impact to water
supplies in the project area.16 (Less Than Significant Impact)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Project implementation would result in a marginal increase (approximately 6,732 gallons of
wastewater17) in wastewater generated in the project area. Future residential development of the
site would not substantially increase wastewater volumes such that the wastewater treatment
provider would not be able to serve the project site. (Less Than Significant Impact)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
The City of Gilroy contracts with Recology South County to provide curbside recycling, garbage,
and organic waste collection services. Solid Waste from the City is currently d isposed of at the
John Smith Landfill near Hollister. The John Smith Landfill is a Class III Landfill with a
permitted capacity of 9.354 million cubic yards.18 As of November 2012, the facility still has
approximately 4,625,827 cubic yards remaining. Class III landfills accept municipal solid waste,
industrial solid waste, sewage sludge, nonhazardous municipal solid waste incinerator ash and
other nonhazardous waste. The John Smith Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Projects requiring a building or demolition permit that involve 5,000 square feet or more are
required to recycle or divert from disposal at a landfill at least 50 percent of the construction
debris resulting from the construction or demolition (Article V of Chapter 12 of the Gilroy
Municipal Code). The project would be required to comply with this provision of the Municipal
Code. (Less Than Significant Impact)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Project implementation would result in the generation of solid waste from new residents. As
described in response f), solid waste generated would be collected by Recology South County
services. Recology South County is required to comply with local, state, and federal statutes
regulations related to solid waste. Thus, the project would comply with the applicable local, state,
and federal statutes and regulations. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.17.3 Conclusion
Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
15 City of Gilroy. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary. May 2016.
16 Ibid.
17 Wastewater generation rate is assumed to be approximately 85 percent of daily water demand.
18 CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: John Smith Road Landfill (35-AA-0001). Website. Accessed on
March 23, 2018. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/35-AA-0001/Detail/
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 87 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.18.1 Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1-16
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable (“cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1-16
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1-16
4.18.2 Impact Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As described in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, there are no structures on-site. Project
implementation therefore, would not eliminate historical resources. Standard permit conditions
would be implemented in the event buried cultural resources were encountered during site
preparation and grading.
Biological impacts resulting from the project, including habitat loss for special-status species and
potential disturbance to non-special status species (e.g. nesting birds, San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrats), would be reduced to a less than significant impact with payment of applicable Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Agency fees and mitigation measures including pre -construction surveys
and implementation of a tree protection plan. Payment of fees to the Habitat Agency would
offset project impacts by contributing funds to acquire land for land preservation for species
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 88 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
protection. The project therefore, does not have the potential to degrade the environment to a
level that would substantially reduce habitat of fish and/or wildlife species. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project
has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.”
As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means
“that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.”
Because criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions would contribute to regional and global
emissions of such pollutants, the identified thresholds developed by BAAQMD and used by the
City of Gilroy were designed such that a project-level impact would also be a cumulatively
considerable impact. The proposed project would not result in significant emissions of criteria
air pollutants or GHG emissions and, therefore, would not make a substantial contribution to
cumulative air quality or GHG emissions impacts. The project would inc orporate mitigation
measures to reduce impacts related to construction Toxic Air Contaminants (MM AIR-1.1 – 1.3).
With implementation of standard permit conditions, the proposed residential development would
not result in impacts related to cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality,
and noise and vibration such that the project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts
to those areas.
The proposed project may contribute to cumulative impacts identified in the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan EIR, specifically impacts related to traffic. Based on the limited AM and PM peak
hour trip generation (11 AM peak hour, 14 PM peak hour) associated with the project, the project
would not result in a new cumulative traffic impact, nor would it have a considerable
contribution to a previously identified cumulative impact.
Biological impacts would be reduced via payment of applicable SCVHA fees which would be
used towards acquisition of lands for plant and animal species and habi tat preservation. The
project, therefore, would not result in significant cumulative biological impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that
the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly. Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be
minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affe cted. This factor relates
to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 89 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would
be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human
beings include community risks from construction equipment air emissions, soil and seismic
hazards, and noise. Implementation mitigation measures and standard permit conditions,
however, would ensure these impacts are less than significant to residential development on the
site. No other direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings have been identified. (Less
Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 90 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
Checklist Sources
1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review
of project plans).
2. City of Gilroy. Gilroy General Plan 2020. June 2002.
3. City of Gilroy. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. June 2002.
4. City of Gilroy. Municipal Code. May 2018.
5. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016. October
2016.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted May 2017.
7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017.
8. Illingworth & Rodkin, In. Greenfield Subdivision Project Air Quality Construction Community
Risk Assessment. April 5, 2018.
9. H.T. Harvey & Associates. Greenfield Drive Category 2 Stream Assessment. October 5, 2017.
10. Hort Science. Arborist Report Greenfield Drive. February 21, 2017.
11. H.T. Harvey & Associates. Greenfield Drive Residential Project 14-Lot Site Plan VHP Review.
February 2017.
12. Holman & Associates. Cultural Resources Study for the New Hope Property. September 2013.
13. Lai & Associates. Preliminary Geotechnical Report. August 2013.
14. Cornerstone Earth Group. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil Quality Evaluation.
September 2013.
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Panel Number: 06085C0752H. May 17,
2009.
16. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Trip Generation Rates.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 91 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan. November 10,
2011.
BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: John Smith Road Landfill (35-AA-0001). Website.
Accessed on March 23, 2018. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/35-AA-0001/Detail/
California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State –
January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2017. Accessed November 10, 2017.
California Air Resources Board. Verification Procedure – Currently Verified. Accessed on July 9th,
2018. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
California Air Resources Board. “AB 32 Scoping Plan”. 2017. Accessed: October 31, 2017.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
City of Gilroy. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary.
May 2016.
City of Gilroy Community Development Department. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. Pg. 2-126. June 10, 2005.
Cornerstone Earth Group. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil Quality Evaluation. New
Hope Property Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, California. September 10, 2013.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2013, Gilroy General Plan 2002, California Department of Finance 2013,
Gilroy Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Report 2013.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
06085C0752H. Effective date May 18, 2009.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Land Use 210 - Single-
Family Detached Housing. October 2017.
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Drive 14-Lot Residential Subdivision 92 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Gilroy July 2018
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
6.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Gilroy
Community Development Department
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
6.2 CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Akoni Danielsen, Principal Project Manager
Michael Lisenbee, Senior Project Manager
Caroline Weston, Associate Project Manager
Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
H.T. Harvey & Associates
Ecological Consultants
Kelly Hardwicke, Principal, Senior Plant and Wetlands Ecologist
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Acoustical and Air Quality Consultants
James Reyff, Principal
Bill Popenuck
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: ISMND Signed Agreement Form (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.k
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: ISMND Determination, TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Appendix A
Community Risk Assessment
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
AIR QUALITY CONSTRUCTION
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT
Gilroy, CA
April 5, 2018
Prepared for:
Caroline Weston
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San José, CA 95126
CWeston@davidjpowers.com
Prepared by:
James A. Reyff and Bill Popenuck
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, CA 94954
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project# 17-210
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
2
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to address air quality community risk impacts associated with the
proposed residential subdivision in Gilroy, California. This project would involve construction,
which would be the primary source of toxic air contaminant (TAC) and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions that could lead to community risk impacts, or in other words, increase health
risks at sensitive receptors.
The project proposes to subdivide the approximately 8.56-acre project site into 14 single-family
residential lots with an average lot size of 10,578 square feet to allow the future construction of
14 single family residences.1 The project would also include construction of Greenfield Circle, a
36-foot wide private street that would provide access to all 14 single-family lots. New
infrastructure (e.g., roadways, sidewalks, sewer mains) would be constructed as part of the
project. The project would also include construction of a Class 2 recreational trail in the
northern portion of the project site along the south side of Uvas Creek. The trail would connect
to an existing Class I bicycle path located along Riverview Circle, directly east of the project
site.
Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur by project construction affecting
nearby sensitive receptors. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
recommends using a 1,000-foot screening radius around a project site for purposes of identifying
potentially significant community health risk.
Setting
The project is located in Santa Clara County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or
mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air
pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry,
agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically
found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a
freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at
the regional, State, and federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-
quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors,
and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a
complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and
formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as
carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs.
1 No architectural or site design plans are proposed at this time. Approval of architectural and site design plans
would be required prior to construction of the residences.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
3
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources
to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy
duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These
regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility
fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new
regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on-road heavy-duty
diesel fueled vehicles.2 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance
requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010
model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the
compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.
The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the
State level, the CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency [EPA])
oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD
has published California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines that are
used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects.3
Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the
following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the
elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These
groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of
these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care
facilities, and elementary schools. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are
residences located to the south and southeast along Greenfield Drive, Alta Oak Way and Village
Place. Gilroy High School lies to the north and northeast across Uvas Creek. Las Animas
Elementary School lies to the southwest, opposite Greenfield Drive at Charles Lane.
Significance Thresholds
The BAAQMD includes significance thresholds for exposure to TACs and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) as part of its May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. In June 2010, BAAQMD
adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. These
thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution
emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The City of San Jose
applies these thresholds to CEQA evaluations of projects that emit TACs and PM2.5. The
following are the significance criteria that are used to judge this project’s impacts:
Single Source Impacts
If emissions of TACs or PM2.5 exceed any of the thresholds of significance listed below, the
proposed project would result in a significant impact and mitigation would be required:
• An excess cancer risk level of more than 10.0 in 1 million, or a non-cancer (chronic or
acute) hazard index greater than 1.0.
• An incremental increase of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) annual
average PM2.5.
2 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2014.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
4
Cumulative Source Impacts
A project would have a cumulatively considerable impact if the combined total of all sources
within a 1,000-foot radius of the fence line of a source or from the location of a receptor, plus the
contribution from the project, exceeds the following thresholds:
• An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer
hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0.
• An incremental increase of more than 0.8 μg/m3 annual average PM2.5.
Project Community Risk Impacts
Community risk impacts associated with the project would occur primarily from construction
activity. When operating, the project may generate automobile traffic and infrequent truck
traffic. These emissions are anticipated to result in fairly low impacts in terms of TAC or PM2.5
exposure and were not evaluated. Cumulative impacts were evaluated with respect to the
project construction and effects from local high-volume roadways and stationary sources
permitted by BAAQMD.
Project Construction Activity
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which
is a known TAC. These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute
substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Construction exhaust emissions may
still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary
community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and
exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby
receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that
evaluated potential health effects of sensitive receptors at these nearby residences from
construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.4 The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are
residences located adjacent to the southeastern site boundary. There are additional residences
north, south, east, and west of the site. Dispersion modeling was conducted to predict the off-site
concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer
health effects could be evaluated.
Construction Emissions
Construction activity is anticipated to include demolition, grading and site preparation, building
construction, and paving. Construction period emissions were modeled using the California
Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). A build-out construction schedule
including equipment usage assumptions was developed based on CalEEMod defaults for a
project of this type and size and information provided by the project applicant. The proposed
project land uses were input into CalEEMod, which included 14 “Single Family Housing”
dwelling units on a 4.68-acre project site (constructed portion of the site). It is anticipated that
most construction, or at least the portion involving diesel equipment, would occur in 2019.
4 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
5
The CalEEMod model provided total annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for
the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles, with total
emissions from all construction stages of 0.0424 tons (85 pounds). The on-road emissions are a
result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker travel, and vendor
deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent vehicle travel
while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on-road vehicles
traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions
were calculated by CalEEMod at about 8 pounds for the overall construction period.
Dispersion Modeling
The U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion model was used to predict DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at
existing sensitive receptors (residences and schools) in the vicinity of the project. The ISCST3
dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these
types of emission activities for CEQA projects.5 The modeling utilized two area sources to
represent the on-site construction emissions, one for exhaust emissions and one for fugitive dust
emissions. To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, an emission release
height of 6 meters (19.7 feet) was used for the area source. The elevated source height reflects
the height of the equipment exhaust pipes plus an additional distance for the height of the
exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for plume rise of the exhaust gases. For
modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 2 meters (6.6 feet) was
used for the area source. Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel
were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Construction emissions were modeled as
occurring daily between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., when of construction activities could occur.
Figure 1 shows the project site and nearby sensitive receptor locations where health impacts
were evaluated.
The modeling used a 5-year meteorological data set (2001 – 2005) from the San Martin Airport
meteorological station prepared for use with the ISCST3 model by the BAAQMD. Annual DPM
and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2019 period were calculated
using the model. DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were calculated at the future sensitive
receptors. A Receptor height of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) was used to represent the breathing height
of nearby residences.
Estimated Cancer Risk and Hazards
Figure 1 shows the locations where the maximum-modeled DPM and PM2.5 concentrations
occurred. Three locations or receptors were identified for maximum impacts: (1) the maximum
affected residence (2) the Las Animas Elementary School (where students grade K through 8 are
assumed to attend) and (3) Gilroy High School. The maximum DPM concentration occurred at a
single-family residence adjacent to the southeastern project site boundary. The maximum annual
modeled DPM concentrations were used to compute the maximum increased cancer risk. The
receptors (or locations of sensitive land uses) where the highest impacts occur is referred to as
the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The impacts in terms of cancer risk, hazards and
PM2.5 are computed at the MEI using BAAQMD-recommended methods. The cancer risk
calculations are based on applying the BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
6
TAC concentrations. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small
children to cancer causing TACs.
Figure 1 Project Site, Modeled Receptors and MEI Locations
BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk calculations, as
described in Attachment 1. In calculating cancer risks for the residential MEI exposures, infant
and adult exposures were assumed to occur. Child exposures were assumed to occur at the
school MEI receptors.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
7
Results of this assessment are shown in Table 1. The maximum increased cancer risk would be
12.3 in one million, assuming infant exposure (at the Residential MEI) and 0.2 in one million for
an adult exposure. The maximum cancer risk at the Las Animas Elementary School and Gilroy
High School would be 0.07 and 0.05 in one million, respectively. The maximum residential
excess cancer risk would be above the significance threshold of 10.0 in one million.
Estimated Annual PM2.5 Concentration
The maximum-modeled annual PM2.5 concentration, which is based on combined exhaust and
fugitive dust emissions, would be 0.08 μg/m3. This maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would
be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of greater than 0.3 μg/m3. The location of the
receptor with the maximum PM2.5 concentration would be the same as where the maximum
cancer risk would occur, and is shown in Figure 1.
Non-Cancer Hazards
The maximum modeled annual residential DPM concentration (i.e., from construction exhaust)
was 0.075 μg/m3. The maximum computed HI based on this DPM concentration is 0.02, which
is much lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a HI greater than 1.0.
Cumulative Impact on Construction MEI
Operation of the project is not expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive
receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. No stationary sources of TACs, such as generators, are
proposed as part of the project.
Contributing sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions were considered in a cumulative analysis. These
would include any other sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. No sources were identified.
The project site and influence area are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Project Site, 1,000 ft Influence Area and Identified Sources
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8
Table 1. Impacts from Project Construction
Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Unmitigated Project Construction
–Resident MEI
–Las Animas Elementary School MEI
-Gilroy High School
12.3 (infant)
0.07 (child)
0.05 (child)
0.08 0.02
Mitigated Project Construction
–Resident MEI
–Las Animas Elementary School MEI
-Gilroy High School
7.4 (infant)
0.04 (child)
0.03 (child)
0.02 <0.01
Cumulative Sources none none none
BAAQMD Threshold – Single Source 10.0 0.3 1.0
BAAQMD Threshold – Combined Sources 100 0.8 10.0
Significant? Yes No No
Summary of Impacts
The project would have a significant impact with respect to community risk caused by project
construction activities since the project itself, a single source, would result in cancer risk that
exceeds 10.0 chances per million. Other single source impacts and cumulative source impacts
would be below the significance thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and
AQ-2 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Include basic measures to control dust and exhaust during
construction.
During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the
project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the
measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality
impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less than significant level.
The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required
of all projects:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
9
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Selection of equipment during construction to minimize
emissions. Such equipment selection would include the following:
The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site
to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average of at least 30 percent
reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve this
reduction would include the following:
• All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and
operating on the site for more than two days shall meet, at a minimum, U.S.
EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent.
• Generator used to provide power shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA
particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Or
their usage shall be limited to 100 hours total.
Note that the construction contractor could use other measures to minimize
construction period DPM emission to reduce the estimated cancer risk below
the thresholds. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3
Diesel Particulate Filters 6 or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel)
could meet this requirement. Other measures may be the use of added exhaust
devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are
approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to
less than significant.
6 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
10
Effectiveness of Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is considered to reduce exhaust emissions by 5
percent and fugitive dust emissions by over 50 percent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
AQ-2 would reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions by 40 percent. With mitigation, the
computed maximum increased lifetime residential cancer risk from construction, assuming infant
exposure at the Residential MEI, would be 7.4 in one million or less. The cancer risk would be
below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per one million for cancer risk. After implementation of
these recommended measures, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect
to community risk caused by construction activities.
Attachments
The technical information developed to support the analysis presented in this report is contained
in the following attachments:
Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology
Attachment 2: Construction Health Risk Assessment
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
11
Attachment 1: Health Impact Evaluation Methodology
A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to TACs requires the application of a risk characterization model to
the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The
State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and CARB develop
recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines
were published in February of 2015.7 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for
enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment
guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.8 This
health risk assessment used the recent 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The
BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of Regulation
2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.9 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA guidelines and
the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation.
Cancer Risk
Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs are calculated based on the TAC concentration over the
period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the
greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s
breathing rate, exposure time and frequency of exposure, and the exposure duration. These parameters vary
depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at
a residential location or other sensitive receptor location.
The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different
breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of
pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and
ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an
ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an
adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per
kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day). As recommended by the BAAQMD, 95th percentile breathing rates are
used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures.
Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 30 years for
sources with long-term emissions (e.g., roadways).
Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be at their home 24
hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to
exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home (FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time,
based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age-specific and are: 0.85 for third
trimester of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years.
Use of the FAH factors is allowed by the BAAQMD if there are no schools in the project vicinity that would have a
cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0).
Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas:
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106
Where:
CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
7 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
February.
8 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23.
9 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment ( HRA) Guidelines. January 2016.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
12
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where:
Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Health Risk Parameters Used for Cancer Risk Calculations
Exposure Type Infant Child Adult
Parameter Age Range 3rd Trimester 0<2 2 < 9 2 < 16 16 - 30
DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)* 361 1,090 631 572 261
Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70 70
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14 14
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350 350
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1
Fraction of Time at Home 0.85-1.0 0.85-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for 3rd trimester and infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Non-Cancer Hazards
Potential non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the
ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration
levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected
to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for
each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a
significant non-cancer health impact from a project would occur.
Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of
concern with non-cancer health effects is DPM. For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3).
Annual PM2.5 Concentrations
While not a TAC, PM2.5 has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential non-cancer health effects
that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under CEQA. The thresholds of
significance for PM2.5 (project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration.
When considering PM2.5 impacts, the contribution from all sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For
projects with potential impacts from nearby local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle
exhaust emissions, PM2.5 generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust
on the roads.
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
13
Attachment 2: Construction Health Risk Assessment
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA
DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates
DPM
Modeled Emission
Construction DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity (ton/year)Source (lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)
2019 Construction 0.0424 CON_DPM 84.8 0.01936 2.44E-03 18,629 1.31E-07
Operation Hours
hr/day =12 (7am - 7pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 4380 PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling
PM2.5
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source (ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2
2019 Construction CON_FUG 0.00347 6.9 0.00158 2.00E-04 18,629 1.07E-08
Operation Hours
hr/day =12 (7am - 7pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 4380
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - With Mitigation
DPM
Modeled Emission
Construction DPM Area DPM Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity (ton/year)Source (lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)(g/s/m2)
2019 Construction 0.02530 CON_DPM 50.6 0.01155 1.46E-03 18,629 7.81E-08
Construction Hours
hr/day =12 (7am - 7pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 4380
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation
PM2.5
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source (ton/year)(lb/yr)(lb/hr)(g/s)(m2)g/s/m2
2019 Construction CON_FUG 0.00126 2.5 0.00058 7.25E-05 18,629 3.89E-09
Construction Hours
hr/day =12 (7am - 7pm)
days/yr = 365
hours/year = 4380
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
14
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA - Construction Health Impact Summary
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Unmitigated
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million)Index Concentration
Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)Infant/Child Adult (-)(μg/m3)
2019 0.0752 0.0083 12.3 0.2 0.02 0.08
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million)Index Concentration
Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)Infant/Child Adult (-)(μg/m3)
2019 0.0448 0.0030 7.4 0.1 0.009 0.05
Maximum Impacts at Lowell Elementary School Student Receptors
Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Student Hazard Annual PM2.5
Construction PM2.5/DPM PM2.5 Cancer Risk Index Concentration
Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)(per million)(-)(μg/m3)
2019 0.0026 0.0002 0.07 0.0005 0.003
Maximum Impacts at Gilroy High School Student Receptors
Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Student Hazard Annual PM2.5
Construction PM2.5/DPM PM2.5 Cancer Risk Index Concentration
Year (μg/m3)(μg/m3)(per million)(-)(μg/m3)
2019 0.0019 0.0002 0.05 0.0004 0.002
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
15
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction
Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 9 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 3 1
CPF =1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* =361 1090 631 572 261
A =1 1 1 1 1
EF =350 350 350 350 350
AT =70 70 70 70 70
FAH =1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total
Year (years)Age Year Annual Factor (per million)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5 PM2.5
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0*--10 -----
1 1 0 - 1 2019 0.0752 10 12.35 2019 0.0752 1 0.22 0.0083 0.083
2 1 1 - 2 2020 0.0000 10 0.00 2020 0.0000 1 0.00
3 1 2 - 3 2021 0.0000 3 0.00 2021 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2022 0.0000 3 0.00 2022 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2023 0.0000 3 0.00 2023 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2024 0.0000 3 0.00 2024 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2032 0.0000 3 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2033 0.0000 3 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2034 0.0000 3 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2035 0.0000 1 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2036 0.0000 1 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2037 0.0000 1 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2038 0.0000 1 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2046 0.0000 1 0.00 2046 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2047 0.0000 1 0.00 2047 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2048 0.0000 1 0.00 2048 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 12.3 0.22
* Third trimester of pregnancy
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
16
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA - Construction Impacts - With Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction
Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 9 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 3 1
CPF =1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* =361 1090 631 572 261
A =1 1 1 1 1
EF =350 350 350 350 350
AT =70 70 70 70 70
FAH =1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult
Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total
Year (years)Age Year Annual Factor (per million)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5 PM2.5
0 0.25 -0.25 - 0*--10 -----
1 1 0 - 1 2018-2019 0.0448 10 7.36 2018-2019 0.0448 1 0.13 0.0030 0.048
2 1 1 - 2 2017 0.0000 10 0.00 2017 0.0000 1 0.00
3 1 2 - 3 2018 0.0000 3 0.00 2018 0.0000 1 0.00
4 1 3 - 4 2019 0.0000 3 0.00 2019 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 2020 0.0000 3 0.00 2020 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 2021 0.0000 3 0.00 2021 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 2022 0.0000 3 0.00 2022 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 2023 0.0000 3 0.00 2023 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 2024 0.0000 3 0.00 2024 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 2025 0.0000 3 0.00 2025 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 2026 0.0000 3 0.00 2026 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 2027 0.0000 3 0.00 2027 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 2028 0.0000 3 0.00 2028 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 2029 0.0000 3 0.00 2029 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 2030 0.0000 3 0.00 2030 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 2031 0.0000 3 0.00 2031 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16-17 2032 0.0000 1 0.00 2032 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17-18 2033 0.0000 1 0.00 2033 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18-19 2034 0.0000 1 0.00 2034 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19-20 2035 0.0000 1 0.00 2035 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20-21 2036 0.0000 1 0.00 2036 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21-22 2037 0.0000 1 0.00 2037 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22-23 2038 0.0000 1 0.00 2038 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23-24 2039 0.0000 1 0.00 2039 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24-25 2040 0.0000 1 0.00 2040 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25-26 2041 0.0000 1 0.00 2041 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26-27 2042 0.0000 1 0.00 2042 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27-28 2043 0.0000 1 0.00 2043 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28-29 2044 0.0000 1 0.00 2044 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29-30 2045 0.0000 1 0.00 2045 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 7.4 0.13
* Third trimester of pregnancy
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
17
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Las Animas Elementary School - 1.5 meters - Child Exposure
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 9 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 3 1
CPF =1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* =361 1090 631 572 261
A =1 1 1 1 1
EF =350 350 350 350 350
AT =70 70 70 70 70
FAH =1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Student - Exposure Information Student
Exposure Age*Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total
Year (years)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 2019 0.0026 3 0.07 0.0002 0.003
* Students assumed to be from 2 to 9 years of age
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
18
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation
Maximum DPM Cancer Risk Calculations From Construction
Gilroy High School - 1.5 meters - Child Exposure
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6
Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age -->3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 9 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 3 1
CPF =1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* =361 1090 631 572 261
A =1 1 1 1 1
EF =350 350 350 350 350
AT =70 70 70 70 70
FAH =1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults
Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location
Student - Exposure Information Student
Exposure Age*Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3)Sensitivity Risk Fugitive Total
Year (years)Year Annual Factor (per million)PM2.5 PM2.5
1 1 2019 0.0019 3 0.05 0.0002 0.002
* Students assumed to be from 9 to 16 years of age
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Project Name: Greenfield Drive Subdivision
Project Size 14 Dwelling Units 4.68 total project acres disturbed
39,200 s.f. residential s.f. retail
s.f. office/commercial s.f. other, specify:
s.f. other, specify:Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
s.f. parking garage spaces
s.f. parking lot spaces
Construction Hours 8 am to 5 pm
Qty Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours
per day Comments
Demolition Start Date:Total phase:10.00 Overall Import/Export Volumes
End Date:
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 - Demolition Volume
1 Excavators 162 0.38 8 10 8 Square footage of buildings to be demolished -0-
Rubber-Tired Dozers 255 0.4 - (or total tons to be hauled)
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 10 8 0 square feet or0 Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date:Total phase:10.00 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _0_ tons
End Date:Soil Hauling Volume
2 Graders 174 0.41 8 15 12
Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.4 - Export volume = 0 cubic yards?
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 15 12 Import volume =17,755cubic yards?
Grading / Excavation Start Date:Total phase:15.00
End Date:Soil Hauling Volume
Scrapers 361 0.48 -
1 Excavators 162 0.38 8 10 5 Export volume = 0 cubic yards?
2 Graders 174 0.41 8 30 16 Import volume = 13,655 cubic yards?
Rubber Tired Dozers 255 0.4 -
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 30 16
Other Equipment?
Trenching Start Date:Total phase:15.00
End Date:
2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 8 20 11
1 Excavators 162 0.38 8 10 5
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date:Total phase:80.00 Cement Trucks? _50_ Total Round-Trips
End Date:
1 Cranes 226 0.29 8 15 2 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel
2 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 15 2 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _N_ Otherwise Assumed diesel
2 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 30 3 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) _Y_
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 10 1 otherwise, assume diesel generator
Welders 46 0.45 -
Other Equipment?-
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date:Total phase:115.00
End Date:
2 Air Compressors 78 0.48 8 20 1
1 Aerial Lift 62 0.31 8 5 0
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date:Total phase:15.00
Start Date:
2 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 8 20 11
1 Pavers 125 0.42 8 10 5
1 Paving Equipment 130 0.36 8 10 5
1 Rollers 80 0.38 8 10 5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 -
Other Equipment?
Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate
It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Modify horepower or load factor, as appropriate
Asphalt? 3,400 cubic yards or ____ round trips?
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - PG&E Rate
Land Use - Based on provided construction information
Construction Phase - Based on provided construction information
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
290 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2020
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Floor Surface Area Population
Single Family Housing 14.00 Dwelling Unit 4.68 39,200.00 40
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 4/5/2018 9:36 AM
Greenfield Dr Subdivision - Santa Clara County, Annual
Greenfield Dr Subdivision
Santa Clara County, Annual
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 115.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
Grading - Based on provided construction information
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 2/DPF Level 3 and BMPs
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - Based on provided construction information
Trips and VMT - Based on provided construction information
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 11.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.55 4.68
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 17,755.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 25,200.00 39,200.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 13,655.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 80.00
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 68.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 100.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 290
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 16.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 5.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 5.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 16.00
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2eExhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 122.1544 122.1544 0.0275 0.0000 122.84160.0138 0.0253 0.0391 1.2600e-
003
0.0253 0.0266Maximum0.3234 1.1347 0.7208 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 122.1544 122.1544 0.0275 0.0000 122.84160.0138 0.0253 0.0391 1.2600e-
003
0.0253 0.026620190.3234 1.1347 0.7208 1.3500e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 122.1545 122.1545 0.0275 0.0000 122.84170.0279 0.0424 0.0703 3.4700e-
003
0.0398 0.0433Maximum0.3620 1.0766 0.6061 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 122.1545 122.1545 0.0275 0.0000 122.84170.0279 0.0424 0.0703 3.4700e-
003
0.0398 0.043320190.3620 1.0766 0.6061 1.3500e-
003
CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
5.4792 157.7115 163.1907 0.2411 1.5300e-
003
169.67460.1136 0.0207 0.1343 0.0304 0.0206 0.0510Total0.3046 0.1714 0.6528 1.6800e-
003
0.2894 0.9140 1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
2.16350.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
3.4103 0.0000 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000 8.44880.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 119.5770 119.5770 4.3400e-
003
0.0000 119.68550.1136 1.3100e-
003
0.1149 0.0304 1.2300e-
003
0.0316Mobile0.0360 0.1497 0.4205 1.3100e-
003
0.0000 36.6138 36.6138 1.9100e-
003
7.1000e-
004
36.87201.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
Energy 2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.7796 0.6067 2.3863 3.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.50480.0179 0.0179 0.0179 0.0179Area0.2664 3.0100e-
003
0.2243 2.5000e-
004
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Highest 0.8505 0.8302
2.2 Overall Operational
2 4-1-2019 6-30-2019 0.1993 0.2195
3 7-1-2019 9-30-2019 0.1839 0.1882
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 1-1-2019 3-31-2019 0.8505 0.8302
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0050.54 40.33 44.38 63.69 36.43 38.62Percent
Reduction
10.66 -5.40 -18.93 0.00
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
OffRoad Equipment
18
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 30
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 79,380; Residential Outdoor: 26,460; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
7 Paving Paving 11/1/2019 11/26/2019 5
80
6 Building interior Architectural Coating 7/2/2019 12/9/2019 5 115
5 Building Construction Building Construction 3/12/2019 7/1/2019 5
15
4 Trenching Trenching 2/19/2019 3/11/2019 5 15
3 Grading Grading 1/29/2019 2/18/2019 5
10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2019 1/28/2019 5 10
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2019 1/14/2019 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
5.4792 157.7115 163.1907 0.2411 1.5300e-
003
169.67460.1136 0.0207 0.1343 0.0304 0.0206 0.0510Total0.3046 0.1714 0.6528 1.6800e-
003
0.2894 0.9140 1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
2.16350.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
3.4103 0.0000 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000 8.44880.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 119.5770 119.5770 4.3400e-
003
0.0000 119.68550.1136 1.3100e-
003
0.1149 0.0304 1.2300e-
003
0.0316Mobile0.0360 0.1497 0.4205 1.3100e-
003
0.0000 36.6138 36.6138 1.9100e-
003
7.1000e-
004
36.87201.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
Energy 2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.7796 0.6067 2.3863 3.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.50480.0179 0.0179 0.0179 0.0179Area0.2664 3.0100e-
003
0.2243 2.5000e-
004
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTDemolition25.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 11.00 97 0.37
Trenching Excavators 1 5.00 158 0.38
Building interior Air Compressors 2 1.00 78 0.48
Building interior Aerial Lifts 1 1.00 63 0.31
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 5.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 1 5.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 5.00 132 0.36
Paving Pavers 1 5.00 130 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 11.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 1.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 3.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 2.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 2.00 231 0.29
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 16.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 2 16.00 187 0.41
Grading Excavators 1 5.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 12.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Graders 2 12.00 187 0.41
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 6.1532 6.1532 1.9500e-
003
0.0000 6.20193.5900e-
003
3.5900e-
003
3.3000e-
003
3.3000e-
003
Total 6.9800e-
003
0.0738 0.0377 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.1532 6.1532 1.9500e-
003
0.0000 6.20193.5900e-
003
3.5900e-
003
3.3000e-
003
3.3000e-
003
Off-Road 6.9800e-
003
0.0738 0.0377 7.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.2 Demolition - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Use DPF for Construction Equipment
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trenching 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building interior 3 1.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 5 13.00 0.00 68.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 6 5.00 1.00 100.00
Grading 5 13.00 0.00 1,707.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 2,219.00
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.1532 6.1532 1.9500e-
003
0.0000 6.20191.4400e-
003
1.4400e-
003
1.4400e-
003
1.4400e-
003
Total 2.0500e-
003
0.0582 0.0422 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.1532 6.1532 1.9500e-
003
0.0000 6.20191.4400e-
003
1.4400e-
003
1.4400e-
003
1.4400e-
003
Off-Road 2.0500e-
003
0.0582 0.0422 7.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0210 0.0210 0.0000 0.0000 0.02102.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0210 0.0210 0.0000 0.0000 0.02102.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
0.0000 14.4158 14.4158 1.6800e-
003
0.0000 14.45781.0000e-
003
1.5000e-
004
1.1500e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
Total 2.7500e-
003
0.1189 0.0202 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0419 0.0419 0.0000 0.0000 0.04204.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 14.3739 14.3739 1.6800e-
003
0.0000 14.41589.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.1100e-
003
2.7000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
Hauling 2.6900e-
003
0.1189 0.0198 1.5000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 13.1338 13.1338 4.1600e-
003
0.0000 13.23778.9600e-
003
5.5100e-
003
0.0145 1.0100e-
003
5.0700e-
003
6.0800e-
003
Total 0.0108 0.1338 0.0621 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 13.1338 13.1338 4.1600e-
003
0.0000 13.23775.5100e-
003
5.5100e-
003
5.0700e-
003
5.0700e-
003
Off-Road 0.0108 0.1338 0.0621 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.9600e-
003
0.0000 8.9600e-
003
1.0100e-
003
0.0000 1.0100e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0210 0.0210 0.0000 0.0000 0.02102.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0210 0.0210 0.0000 0.0000 0.02102.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
3.4 Grading - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 14.4158 14.4158 1.6800e-
003
0.0000 14.45781.0000e-
003
1.5000e-
004
1.1500e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
Total 2.7500e-
003
0.1189 0.0202 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0419 0.0419 0.0000 0.0000 0.04204.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 14.3739 14.3739 1.6800e-
003
0.0000 14.41589.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.1100e-
003
2.7000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
Hauling 2.6900e-
003
0.1189 0.0198 1.5000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 13.1338 13.1338 4.1600e-
003
0.0000 13.23774.0300e-
003
3.6100e-
003
7.6400e-
003
2.3000e-
004
3.6100e-
003
3.8400e-
003
Total 4.6200e-
003
0.1293 0.0879 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 13.1338 13.1338 4.1600e-
003
0.0000 13.23773.6100e-
003
3.6100e-
003
3.6100e-
003
3.6100e-
003
Off-Road 4.6200e-
003
0.1293 0.0879 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.0300e-
003
0.0000 4.0300e-
003
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00007.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 4.1000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 11.1391 11.1391 1.2900e-
003
0.0000 11.17158.1000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
9.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
Total 2.1900e-
003
0.0915 0.0160 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0818 0.0818 0.0000 0.0000 0.08197.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 11.0573 11.0573 1.2900e-
003
0.0000 11.08967.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
8.6000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.2000e-
004
Hauling 2.0700e-
003
0.0914 0.0153 1.1000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 28.4411 28.4411 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 28.66610.0167 0.0116 0.0283 1.8300e-
003
0.0107 0.0125Total0.0228 0.2801 0.1395 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 28.4411 28.4411 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 28.66610.0116 0.0116 0.0107 0.0107Off-Road 0.0228 0.2801 0.1395 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0167 0.0000 0.0167 1.8300e-
003
0.0000 1.8300e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 7.9278 7.9278 2.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.99063.8200e-
003
3.8200e-
003
3.5200e-
003
3.5200e-
003
Total 6.0200e-
003
0.0608 0.0628 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9278 7.9278 2.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.99063.8200e-
003
3.8200e-
003
3.5200e-
003
3.5200e-
003
Off-Road 6.0200e-
003
0.0608 0.0628 9.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.5 Trenching - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 11.1391 11.1391 1.2900e-
003
0.0000 11.17158.1000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
9.3000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
Total 2.1900e-
003
0.0915 0.0160 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0818 0.0818 0.0000 0.0000 0.08197.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 1.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 11.0573 11.0573 1.2900e-
003
0.0000 11.08967.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
8.6000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.2000e-
004
Hauling 2.0700e-
003
0.0914 0.0153 1.1000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 28.4411 28.4411 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 28.66617.5100e-
003
7.8500e-
003
0.0154 4.1000e-
004
7.8500e-
003
8.2600e-
003
Total 0.0102 0.2793 0.1941 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 28.4411 28.4411 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 28.66617.8500e-
003
7.8500e-
003
7.8500e-
003
7.8500e-
003
Off-Road 0.0102 0.2793 0.1941 3.2000e-
004
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 7.9278 7.9278 2.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.99053.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
Total 3.9500e-
003
0.0827 0.0667 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9278 7.9278 2.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.99053.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
Off-Road 3.9500e-
003
0.0827 0.0667 9.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0503 0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.05044.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0503 0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.05044.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
0.0000 1.1363 1.1363 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.13932.3000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
Total 4.6000e-
004
8.3000e-
003
3.1800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1678 0.1678 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.16801.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 2.5000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.4800e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.3208 0.3208 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.32174.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Vendor 9.0000e-
005
2.8200e-
003
8.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.6478 0.6478 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.64974.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.2000e-
004
5.3600e-
003
8.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 26.2787 26.2787 4.0200e-
003
0.0000 26.37930.0123 0.0123 0.0119 0.0119Total0.0227 0.2137 0.1700 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 26.2787 26.2787 4.0200e-
003
0.0000 26.37930.0123 0.0123 0.0119 0.0119Off-Road 0.0227 0.2137 0.1700 3.0000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0503 0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.05044.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0503 0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.05044.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
3.7 Building interior - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 1.1363 1.1363 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.13932.3000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
Total 4.6000e-
004
8.3000e-
003
3.1800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1678 0.1678 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.16801.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 2.5000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.4800e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.3208 0.3208 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.32174.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Vendor 9.0000e-
005
2.8200e-
003
8.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.6478 0.6478 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.64974.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.2000e-
004
5.3600e-
003
8.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 26.2786 26.2786 4.0200e-
003
0.0000 26.37923.8000e-
003
3.8000e-
003
3.8000e-
003
3.8000e-
003
Total 0.0112 0.2501 0.1874 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 26.2786 26.2786 4.0200e-
003
0.0000 26.37923.8000e-
003
3.8000e-
003
3.8000e-
003
3.8000e-
003
Off-Road 0.0112 0.2501 0.1874 3.0000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.2759
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0482 0.0482 0.0000 0.0000 0.04834.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0482 0.0482 0.0000 0.0000 0.04834.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 5.9776 5.9776 7.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.99662.5900e-
003
2.5900e-
003
2.5800e-
003
2.5800e-
003
Total 0.2813 0.0401 0.0432 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.9776 5.9776 7.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.99662.5900e-
003
2.5900e-
003
2.5800e-
003
2.5800e-
003
Off-Road 5.4000e-
003
0.0401 0.0432 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.2759
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 6.8929 6.8929 1.9400e-
003
0.0000 6.94142.6800e-
003
2.6800e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
Total 5.5400e-
003
0.0520 0.0489 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 6.8929 6.8929 1.9400e-
003
0.0000 6.94142.6800e-
003
2.6800e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
Off-Road 5.5400e-
003
0.0520 0.0489 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.8 Paving - 2019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0482 0.0482 0.0000 0.0000 0.04834.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0482 0.0482 0.0000 0.0000 0.04834.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Worker 7.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 5.9776 5.9776 7.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.99652.9400e-
003
2.9400e-
003
2.9400e-
003
2.9400e-
003
Total 0.2816 0.0469 0.0445 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.9776 5.9776 7.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.99652.9400e-
003
2.9400e-
003
2.9400e-
003
2.9400e-
003
Off-Road 5.6800e-
003
0.0469 0.0445 7.0000e-
005
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.8929 6.8929 1.9400e-
003
0.0000 6.94142.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
Total 4.0700e-
003
0.0657 0.0563 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving0.0000
0.0000 6.8929 6.8929 1.9400e-
003
0.0000 6.94142.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
Off-Road 4.0700e-
003
0.0657 0.0563 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.5386 0.5386 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.54001.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 2.2000e-
004
3.7100e-
003
1.4700e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0981 0.0981 0.0000 0.0000 0.09839.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 1.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.4405 0.4405 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.44183.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 8.0000e-
005
3.6400e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
Total 133.28 138.74 120.68 305,469 305,469
Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 133.28 138.74 120.68 305,469 305,469
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
0.0000 119.5770 119.5770 4.3400e-
003
0.0000 119.68550.1136 1.3100e-
003
0.1149 0.0304 1.2300e-
003
0.0316Unmitigated0.0360 0.1497 0.4205 1.3100e-
003
0.0000 119.5770 119.5770 4.3400e-
003
0.0000 119.68550.1136 1.3100e-
003
0.1149 0.0304 1.2300e-
003
0.0316Mitigated0.0360 0.1497 0.4205 1.3100e-
003
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 0.5386 0.5386 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.54001.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 2.2000e-
004
3.7100e-
003
1.4700e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0981 0.0981 0.0000 0.0000 0.09839.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 1.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.4405 0.4405 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.44183.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Hauling 8.0000e-
005
3.6400e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 21.7143 21.7143 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.84341.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 21.7143 21.7143 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.84341.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
NaturalGas
Mitigated
2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 14.8995 14.8995 1.4900e-
003
3.1000e-
004
15.02860.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 14.8995 14.8995 1.4900e-
003
3.1000e-
004
15.02860.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Mitigated
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.020156 0.002083 0.001571 0.005363 0.000620 0.000785
SBUS MH
Single Family Housing 0.604810 0.038204 0.185149 0.108513 0.015498 0.004981 0.012268
LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1
15.00 54.00 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
15.0286
Total 14.8995 1.4900e-
003
3.1000e-
004
15.0286
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
113268 14.8995 1.4900e-
003
3.1000e-
004
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
21.7143 21.7143 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.8434
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000
4.0000e-
004
21.8434
Total 2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7143 21.7143 4.2000e-
004
7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
406911 2.1900e-
003
0.0188
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO
21.7143 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.8434
Mitigated
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7143
21.8434
Total 2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7143 21.7143 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
Single Family
Housing
406911 2.1900e-
003
0.0188 7.9800e-
003
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
1.7796 0.6067 2.3863 3.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.50480.0179 0.0179 0.0179 0.0179Unmitigated0.2664 3.0100e-
003
0.2243 2.5000e-
004
1.7796 0.6067 2.3863 3.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.50480.0179 0.0179 0.0179 0.0179Mitigated0.2664 3.0100e-
003
0.2243 2.5000e-
004
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
15.0286
Total 14.8995 1.4900e-
003
3.1000e-
004
15.0286
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
113268 14.8995 1.4900e-
003
3.1000e-
004
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
1.7796 0.6067 2.3863 3.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.50480.0179 0.0179 0.0179 0.0179Total0.2664 3.0200e-
003
0.2243 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.1698 0.1698 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.17395.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
Landscaping 3.1800e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.1043 1.0000e-
005
1.7796 0.4369 2.2165 3.3600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.33090.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173Hearth0.0825 1.8100e-
003
0.1200 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.1531
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
0.0276
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
1.7796 0.6067 2.3863 3.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.50480.0179 0.0179 0.0179 0.0179Total0.2664 3.0200e-
003
0.2243 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.1698 0.1698 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.17395.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
Landscaping 3.1800e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.1043 1.0000e-
005
1.7796 0.4369 2.2165 3.3600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.33090.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173Hearth0.0825 1.8100e-
003
0.1200 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.1531
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
0.0276
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2.1635
Total 1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
2.1635
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0.912156 /
0.575055
1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
2.1635
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
2.1635
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
8.4488
Total 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000 8.4488
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
16.8 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000 8.4488
t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000 8.4488
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2.1635
Total 1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
2.1635
Single Family
Housing
0.912156 /
0.575055
1.2034 0.0298 7.2000e-
004
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power
8.4488
Total 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000 8.4488
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
16.8 3.4103 0.2015 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
8.A.l
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot
Appendix B-1
Arborist Report
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy, CA
Prepared for:
David J. Powers
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
Prepared by:
HortScience, Inc.
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
February 21, 2017
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1 Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 3 Evaluation of Impacts 5 Tree Preservation Guidelines 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 4 Table 3. Trees recommended for removal 6
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Map Tree Assessment Plan
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Introduction and Overview
New Hope Church is proposing to redevelop the property located on Greenfield Drive in Gilroy,
CA. The site is currently a native oak woodland. HortScience, Inc. was asked by David J.
Powers to prepare an Arborist Report for the project to meet the City of Gilroy Landscaping
Policy. This report includes the following information:
1. A survey of trees currently growing on the site.
2. An assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project on the trees.
3. Recommendations for tree preservation and removal.
4. Recommendations for tree protection during the demolition and construction phases.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on September 13, 2016. The assessment included trees measuring 6” and
greater in diameter within the project area... The assessment procedure consisted of the
following steps:
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
2. Tagging each tree with a numerically coded metal tag and recording its location on a
map;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade;
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with
good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural
defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of
crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with
regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large
branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage
from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for
preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree species,
and its potential to remain an asset to the site.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential
for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than
can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense
management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than
those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot
be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of
treatment. The species or individual tree may have characteristics
that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for
use areas.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 2
Description of Trees
Eighty-five (85) trees were evaluated, representing four different species (Table 1). Five (5) off-
site trees located on the western border were included in the assessment (#34, 35, 36, 37 and
38). Descriptions of individual trees are found in the Tree Assessment Forms and locations are
plotted on the Tree Assessment Map (see Exhibits).
The most commonly encountered species on site was the coast live oak, with 77 individuals (91%
of the population). Most of the coast live oaks were spread across the site (Photos 1 and 2).
Average diameter was 17”, but forty (40) of the trees had at least one stem larger than 15”, with
the largest coast live oak (# 47), measuring 42” in diameter. The majority of the coast live oaks
were in fair condition (58), with 14 in good condition, and five in poor. All five (5) off-site trees
were coast live oaks.
The second most common species on site was English walnut, with six individuals (7% of
population). Walnuts were in poor condition, with one (1) tree in fair condition and none in good.
Walnuts tended to have multiple attachments at the base. The walnuts in poor condition had
decay and were almost dead.
One (1) valley oak was inter-planted among the row of coast live oaks. It was in poor condition
with a thin canopy.
One (1) blue oak had a wound on the base and multiple fruiting bodies, known as
Annulohypoxylon thouarsianum, which is often found on the dead bark of oaks (photos 3 and 4,
next page). The diameter for the blue oak was 22”.
Average tree condition at the site was fair, with 59 trees (69%). All fourteen (14) of the trees in
good condition were coast live oaks. Twelve (12) trees were in poor condition (14%).
Photo 1: Representative photo of
the oak woodland.
Photo 2: A row of semi-mature,
significant oaks (#76-74, left to right).
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 3
The City of Gilroy’s Landscaping Policy defines all native trees 6” or greater as Significant.
Seventy-nine (79) trees qualified as significant, including seventy-seven (77) coast live oak, one
(1) blue oak and one (1) valley oak. Significant trees are identified in the Tree Assessment
Forms (see Exhibits).
Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA.
Common
Name
Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
English walnut Juglans regia 5 1 - 6
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 5 58 14 77
Blue oak Quercus douglasii 1 - - 1
Valley oak Quercus lobata 1 - - 1
Total 12 59 14 85
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the
quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an
extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully
selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment
and perform well in the landscape.
Photos 3 & 4: Blue oak #6 was in poor condition with a thin canopy and a wound
at the base of the trunk. Canker fruiting bodies were growing on the decay.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 4
Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and
longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are
present, the presence of structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or
injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where
development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider the potential for trees to grow
and thrive in a new environment as well as their structural stability.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition
of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are
non-vigorous trees.
Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be
corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to
people or property is likely. Blue oak #6 is an example of such a tree.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts
and changes in the environment. In our experience, coast live oak is relatively tolerant of
site disturbance.
Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to
an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond
to change.
Species invasiveness
Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always
appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists
species identified as being invasive. Gilroy is in the Central W est Floristic Province and
not one of the species evaluated was considered invasive.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition
and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2).
We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where
people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation
depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 5
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA
High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for
longevity at the site. Twelve (12) coast live oak trees were highly suitable for
preservation.
Moderate Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with
treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and
monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high”
category. Fifty-five (55) trees were moderately suitable for preservation.
Low Trees in poor health or with significant defects in structure that cannot be
abated with treatment. Trees can be expected to decline regardless of
management. The species or individual tree may possess either
characteristics that are undesirable in landscape plantings or be unsuited for
use areas. Eighteen (18) trees had low suitability for preservation, including
ten (10) coast live oaks, six (6) English walnuts, one (1) blue oak and one (1)
valley oak.
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of
construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment Form was the
reference point for tree health and condition. I referred to the Grading and Drainage Plan
prepared by Hanna-Brunetti (dated March 2017) to estimate the impacts to trees from the
proposed changes.
The Site Plan showed building layouts, roads, entry locations, grading, utility and drainage
information. Driplines and accurate trunk locations for all of the trees were not included on the
plans.
The proposed improvements would transform the site into a residential community of single family
homes. A new entry would connect the project to Greenfield Drive to the south, and to the north
a new bike lane would continue off of the existing one on Riverview Circle.
Using the proposed plan, potential impacts from construction were estimated for each tree. The
most significant impacts to the trees would occur as a result of the grading and construction of the
buildings and roads.
Based on my assessment of the plan, removal would be required for 36 trees (Table 3, following
page), 31 of which qualified as Significant. Ten (10) of the trees (#6, 7, 30, 47, 52, 53, 54, 56, 70
and 80) identified for removal had low suitability for preservation. Half of the low suitability are
significant trees. Eight (8) trees (#8, 20, 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43) are located within the building
footprint. Thirteen (13) would fall within the roads and curbs (#11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34,
35, 36, 37 and 38). Five of those are off-site trees (#34-38) and belong to the City of Gilroy. Two
(2) trees are located within a grade change (#50 and 51). Three (3) trees are within the proposed
bike path (#75, 83 and 84).
Forty-nine (49) trees are recommended for preservation based on the current design. Fourteen
(14) of the trees identified for preservation are located at the northern end of the property near the
storm water drainage easement. Twenty-two (22) of the tree identified for preservation are
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 6
located on the southern portion of the property. Preservation of trees is predicated on following
the Tree Preservation Guidelines provided at the end of this document.
Table 3. Trees recommended for removal
Greenfield Drive, Gilroy, CA
Tree Common Trunk Significant? Reason for Removal
No. Name Diameter
6 Blue oak 22 Yes Poor condition
7 Coast live oak 6 Yes Poor condition
8 Coast live oak 8 Yes Within new building
11 Coast live oak 17,15,10 Yes Within trenching
12 Coast live oak 9,8,8,7,7,6,6,6,5,5 Yes Within new road
13 Coast live oak 6,5,4,4,4,4, Yes Within new curb
14 Coast live oak 9,9,9,8,7,7,6,4 Yes Within new road
15 Coast live oak 15,12,10 Yes Within new road
16 Coast live oak 24 Yes Within new road
17 Coast live oak 13 Yes Within new road
18 Coast live oak 15 Yes Within new road
20 Coast live oak 9,8,7 Yes Within new building
30 Coast live oak 8,7,6,5 Yes Poor condition
31 Coast live oak 10 Yes Within new building
34 Coast live oak 9 Yes Off-site; within new road
35 Coast live oak 20,13,9 Yes Off-site; within new road
36 Coast live oak 15 Yes Off-site; within new road
37 Coast live oak 12,12 Yes Off-site; within new road
38 Coast live oak 13 Yes Off-site; within new road
39 Coast live oak 28,26,16,15,12 Yes Within new building
40 Coast live oak 24,24,23 Yes Within new building
41 Coast live oak 19 Yes Within new building
42 Coast live oak 34 Yes Within new building
43 Coast live oak 29 Yes Within new building
47 Coast live oak 42 Yes Poor condition
50 Coast live oak 16,15 Yes Within grading
51 Coast live oak 6,6,5,4,4,3,3,3, Yes Within grading
52 English walnut 15,10,10,9 No Poor condition
53 English walnut 15,13,13 No Poor condition
54 English walnut 9,8,8,7,4 No Poor condition
56 English walnut 9,9,9,7 No Poor condition
70 English walnut 13 No Poor condition
75 Coast live oak 20 Yes Within bike path
80 Valley oak 14,14,10 Yes Poor condition
83 Coast live oak 14,13 Yes Within bike path
84 Coast live oak 16 Yes Within bike path
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 7
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of
tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to
extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than
an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading,
the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain
and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.
Design recommendations
1. Have the vertical and horizontal locations of all the trees identified for preservation
established and plotted on all plans. Forward these plans to the Consulting Arborist for
review and comment.
2. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist
with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans,
improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, and landscape and
irrigation plans.
3. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around each tree to be preserved.
TREE PROTECTION ZONES for trees identified for preservation are identified in the following
table. No trenching, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within
that zone. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall
be placed in the Tree Protection Zone. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other
excavation shall not be placed within the Tree Protection Zone, either temporarily or
permanently.
Specific Tree Protection Zones
Tree No. TPZ
#9 7' S. and E., DL in all other directions
#19 7’ S. and DL in all other directions
#21 5' N. and W ., DL in all other directions
#22 7’ N. and W., DL in all other directions
#25 7' S. and E., DL in all other directions
#45 7' S., DL in all other directions.
#50 5’ S., DL in all other directions
#51 5’ S., DL in all other directions
4. Tree Protection Zones for trees not listed in the table above shall be established at the
dripline or at a 10-foot radius, whichever is greater.
5. Tree Preservation Guidelines, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included
on all plans.
6. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed
around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special
construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed
where necessary to minimize root injury.
7. Locate all temporary access roads to remain outside TPZ’s.
8. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and
labeled for that use.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 8
9. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree
Protection Zone.
Pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The construction superintendent shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning
work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree Protection Zone prior to
demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6’ high chain link, mounted to steel
posts firmly driven into the ground or on stanchions fastened securely with rebar staples
12” deep, as required by the City. Fences are to remain until all grading and
construction is completed.
3. Trees recommended for preservation may require clearance pruning for construction. All
pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the
latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management
Practices -- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture.
4. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
The consultant shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to
monitor demolition activity.
5. Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
6. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish
and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree
pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird
surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in
establishing work buffers for active nests.
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Prior to beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are
required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures,
access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
2. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection
Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
3. Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots
should be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by
manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting
Arborist will identify where root pruning is required.
4. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as
possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
5. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and
cut cleanly with a saw.
6. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific
TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site
work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission
of the Consultant.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Arborist Report, David J. Powers HortScience, Inc.
Greenfield Drive, February 2017 Page 9
7. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all
times.
8. Prior to grading, pad preparation, excavation for foundations/footings/walls, trenching,
trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE by cutting all roots
cleanly to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher
with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. The Consulting Arborist
will identify where root pruning is required.
9. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or
stored within the Tree Protection Zone.
10. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed
by a Certified Arborist and not by PG&E or construction personnel.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Trees preserved at the Greenfield Drive site may experience a physical environment different
from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored.
Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be
required.
HortScience, Inc.
Maryellen Bell
Certified Arborist WE-5643A
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments Reason for Removal
1 Coast live oak 34, 16 Yes 4 High Codominant at 3'; twig dieback; long lateral limb touching ground
on S.
2 Coast live oak 21 Yes 4 High Codominant at 7 '; twig dieback; nest.Within grading
3 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 7'; wound on N at 4'.
4 Coast live oak 24, 17, 16 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branching at 2'; wound on E branch at 9'; twig dieback.
5 Coast live oak 23 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 10'; wound on east at 2'; twig dieback.
6 Blue oak 22 Yes 2 Low Wound at base on S with annulohypoxylon canker fruiting body;
thin canopy; twig dieback.
Poor condition
7 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Low Canopy touching ground ; multiple branch attachments at 10' with
wound on the S branch; topped.
Poor condition
8 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 Moderate Thin canopy; twig dieback; suppressed by tree #1.
9 Coast live oak 21 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at 6'; twig dieback.
10 Coast live oak 10 Yes 4 Moderate Twig dieback on S where suppressed by #11.
11 Coast live oak 17,15,10 Yes 3 Moderate Girdling root on E; multiple branch attachments at 3'; twig dieback.Within trenching
12 Coast live oak 9,8,8,7,7,
6,6,6 5,5
Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at base; twig dieback; canopy
touching ground.
Within new road
13 Coast live oak 6,5,4,4,4,
4
Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at base; twig dieback; canopy
touching ground.
Within new curb
14 Coast live oak 9,9,9,8,7,
7,6,4
Yes 3 Moderate Multiple trunk attachments at base; twig dieback; canopy touching
ground.
Within new road
15 Coast live oak 15,12,10 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple small wound S and W trunk; multiple branch attachments
at 3'; suppressed on E by #16 and #17.
Within new road
16 Coast live oak 24 Yes 3 Moderate Tree leans to the S; codominant branching at 5'; canopy
suppressed on W and N.
Within new road
Tree Assessment
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy,CA
September 13, 2016
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments Reason for Removal
Tree Assessment
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy,CA
September 13, 2016
17 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at 7' with seam; decay wound on w;
suppressed by tree # 18.
Within new road
18 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple wounds on S; suppressed by #17; twig dieback.Within bio-retention
19 Coast live oak 20 Yes 3 Low Bulge at base on N; wounds where branches removed on W;
codominant branching at 12' with seam; thin canopy; twig dieback.
20 Coast live oak 9,8,7 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at 1'; twig dieback; wound from
branch removal on W.
Within new building
21 Coast live oak 24 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at 6'; suppressed on S by #22; wound
on S at 3'; twig dieback.
22 Coast live oak 19,17,12,
11
Yes 3 Low Multiple branch attachments at base; thin canopy; suppressed by
#21 and 23 ; twig dieback.
23 Coast live oak 18,12 Yes 3 Low Multiple branch attachments at 2'; included bark; branch wound on
E ; reach at base on E; suppressed by# 22.
24 Coast live oak 17 Yes 4 High Twig dieback.
25 Coast live oak 21 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; thin canopy; suppressed by # 24.
26 Coast live oak 17,15,14 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at 3'; branch wound with decay on E;
bulge on base at W; branch wound on W at 5'; twig dieback.
27 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 6'; twig and branch dieback; suppressed by #26.
28 Coast live oak 10, 8 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 3'; suppressed by #29; twig dieback.
29 Coast live oak 14,13,9 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 3'; twig dieback; thin canopy.
30 Coast live oak 8,7,6,5 Yes 2 Low Multiple branch attachments at base with decay on S; canopy
touching ground.
Poor condition
31 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at 6'; branch wound on E at 2'.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments Reason for Removal
Tree Assessment
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy,CA
September 13, 2016
32 Coast live oak 9,6 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 1'; twig dieback; suppressed by #4.
33 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High Dense canopy.
34 Coast live oak 9 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site; canopy touching ground; sinuous trunk; suppressed on S.Within new road
35 Coast live oak 20,13,9 Yes 3 Low Off-site; canopy touching ground; multiple branch attachments at
2'; decay between Codominant at 4' on S; twig dieback; epicormic.
Within new road
36 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High Off-site; canopy touching ground; Codominant at 5'.
37 Coast live oak 12,12 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site; canopy touching ground; Codominant at 4'; multiple
wounds on N at 4'.
38 Coast live oak 13 Yes 5 High Off-site; canopy touching ground.
39 Coast live oak 28,26,16,
15,12
Yes 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at base; canopy touching ground ;
decay on E trunk at 3'; twig dieback.
Within new building
40 Coast live oak 24,24,23 Yes 4 High Codominant at 2'; canopy touching ground; dense canopy; twig
dieback; decay on branch on S.
Within new building
41 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4 High Multiple branch attachments at 6'; canopy touching ground; twig
dieback.
Within new building
42 Coast live oak 34 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 3'; large spreading canopy; brand wounds on N;
twig dieback.
Within new building
43 Coast live oak 29 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 6'; branch wound & 4' and 7' on S; twig dieback;
canopy touching ground.
Within new building
44 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 7'; twig dieback suppressed.Within grading
45 Coast live oak 6,6,3,2,2 Yes 4 High Multiple branch attachments at base; twig dieback.Within grading
46 Coast live oak 20 Yes 3 Moderate Top of crown leans to E.With grading
47 Coast live oak 42 Yes 1 Low Failure on S.Poor condition
48 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate Suppressed on N; wound on E at base.Within grading
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments Reason for Removal
Tree Assessment
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy,CA
September 13, 2016
49 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4 High Twig dieback.Within grading
50 Coast live oak 16,15 Yes 4 High Twig dieback; codominant at 4'.Within grading
51 Coast live oak 6,6,5,4,4,
3,3,3
Yes 3 Moderate No tag; multiple branch attachments atbase; sprouts.Within new building
52 English walnut 15,10,10,
9
No 2 Low Twig dieback; multiple branch attachments at 3'; decay on branch
N.
Poor condition
53 English walnut 15,13,13 No 2 Low Twig dieback; multiple branch attachments at 3'; decay on branch
E.
Poor condition
54 English walnut 9,8,8,7,4 No 1 Low Twig dieback; multiple branch attachments at 3'; decay base and
in branch on E.
Poor condition
55 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate Sinuous trunk; twig dieback.
56 English walnut 9,9,9,7 No 3 Low Twig dieback; Multiple branch attachments at 3'.Poor condition
57 Coast live oak 22 Yes 3 Moderate Leaning trunk to E; twig dieback.
58 Coast live oak 9 Yes 2 Moderate Leaning to N; twig dieback; suppressed by #57; codominant at 9'.
59 Coast live oak 12,11,10,
7
Yes 3 Moderate Multiple trunks at base; twig dieback; thin canopy.
60 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3 Low Sinuous trunk; twig dieback; leans S; suppressed.
61 Coast live oak 10,7 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 3'; twig dieback; suppressed.
62 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 Low Sinuous trunk; leans S; twig dieback; suppressed.
63 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 Moderate Sinuous trunk; twig dieback.
64 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 4'; twig dieback; suppressed.
65 English walnut 11,11 Yes 2 Low Multiple branch attachments at 2'; twig dieback with decay;
suppressed ; history of branch failure.
66 Coast live oak 20 Yes 3 Moderate Leans N; twig dieback.
67 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate Leans N; twig dieback.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments Reason for Removal
Tree Assessment
Greenfield Drive
Gilroy,CA
September 13, 2016
68 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low Leans W; twig dieback.
69 Coast live oak 27 Yes 3 Moderate Leans W; twig dieback.
70 English walnut 13 No 2 Low Codominant at 3'; twig dieback; history of branch failure.Poor condition
71 Coast live oak 13,7 No 3 Moderate Multiple branch attachments at base; sinuous trunk; suppressed.
72 Coast live oak 9 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; suppressed.
73 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; branch attachmentat 11' with seam.Within grading
74 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; suppressed.Within grading
75 Coast live oak 20 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; multiple branch attachments at 12'; canopy touches
ground on N.
Within grading
76 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; top of canopy leans N.Within grading
77 Coast live oak 25,17 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; codominant at 2'.Within grading
78 Coast live oak 10, 6 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; codominantat base; canopy touches ground to E.Within grading
79 Coast live oak 21 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; suppressed; canopy leans to W and touches
ground.
Within grading
80 Valley oak 14, 14, 10 Yes 2 Low Twig dieback; thin canopy; multiple branch attachments at 3'.Poor condition
81 Coast live oak 13,9 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; suppressed; codominant at base.
82 Coast live oak 14,9 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; suppressed; codominant at 3'; canopy leans N.
83 Coast live oak 14,13 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; suppressed; codominant at 3'.
84 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate Twig dieback; codominant at 12'.
85 Coast live oak 12,10,9,5 Yes 4 High Multiple branch attachments at base; canopy touching ground;
twig dieback.
8.A.m
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Appendix B-2
Biological Constraints Report
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210
Memorandum
February 24, 2017
To: Jared Bond, Project Manager/Biologist
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
From: Kelly Hardwicke, Project Manager/Senior Associate Plant Ecologist
H. T. Harvey & Associates
Subject: Greenfield Drive Residential Project 14-Lot Site Plan VHP Review
The Greenfield Drive Residential Project is a proposed housing development located on an 8.59-acre (ac) parcel
(Accessor’s Parcel No. 808-20-008, 8.08 ac per the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan [VHP] Geobrowser [Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Agency [SCVHA] 2016]). H. T. Harvey & Associates (HTH) has prepared this biological
resources letter report to evaluate the proposed project for consistency with the requirements for covered projects
under the VHP, and to propose appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for the project. A prior
biological evaluation of the Project site was conducted for a different proposed project in this same lot in 2013,
and this memo evaluates the analysis of the prior constraints report (Live Oak Associates [LOA] 2013).
Our understanding is that the Project currently consists of 14 single-family homes with associated infrastructure
elements including paved roads, curbs and gutters, several detention and bioretention ponds, and a 12-foot wide
Class 2 trail. There are no storm water outfalls into Uvas Creek currently proposed for the development. The
Project will remove six coast live oak trees, and additional tree loss may occur due to grading under and/or in
close proximity to the canopy of individual trees.
General Project Site Description and Current VHP Mapping
The Greenfield Residential Project site is located in the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County, California (Figure
1). The Project site and neighboring property to the west are a contiguous area of open space bound by residential
neighborhoods and Las Animas Elementary School. The site is underlain by four soil types: 1) Garretson loam,
gravel substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes; 2) Hillgate silt loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes; 3) San Andreas fine sandy
loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; and 4) Terrace Enscarpments (NRCS 2016). None of these soils are considered
hydric, or strongly alkaline or serpentine. Elevations range from approximately 190 to 280 ft (Earth Gravitational
Model of 1996), which the majority of areas within the parcel mildly sloping, interspersed with some more steeply
sloping hillsides.
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
1 0 10.5
Miles
N:\Projects3900\3929-01\Reports\Biological Impact Assessment\Fig 1 Vicinity Map.mxd mlagardeProject Location
Figure 1. Vicinity MapGreenfield Drive Residential Project - Biological Impact Assessment (3929-01)
February 2017
PacificOcean
MONTEREY
SANTA CLARA
ALAMEDA
SAN BENITO
STANISLAUS
SAN JOAQUIN
CONTRA COSTA
SANTA CRUZ
SAN MATEO
MERCED
MARIN
SAN FRANCISCO
Salinas
Oakland
San Jose
Stockton
Hollister
Santa Cruz
San Rafael
Redwood City
San Francisco
Detail
California
0 20
Miles
Project Vicinity
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
3
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
The site occurs within the VHP’s urban service area, Fee Zone B for agricultural and valley floor lands, and the
majority of the parcel excepting for a small area at the southern boundary is mapped as an area where all private
development is covered (ICF International 2012 and SCVHA 2016). The area at the southern boundary of the
parcel is mapped as Urban Development Equal to or Greater than 2 ac Covered. Uvas Creek bisects the property
near the northern boundary in an east-west direction, and is mapped as a Category 1 Stream with a 150-foot (ft)
stream buffer (SCVHA 2016).1 Furthermore, it occurs within the VHP’s survey area for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo
bellii pusillus) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) (SCVHA 2016).
The SCVHA (2016) has mapped nearly the entire site as mixed riparian woodland and forest; however, a
reconnaissance-level survey by a qualified biologist provided information on habitat types that allows substantial
refinement of this coarse site mapping, as per VHP land cover definitions. Such refinement of site land cover
mapping is an accepted and normal part of the process of evaluating a site under the VHP (ICF International
2012). The Project site supports five land cover types that meet the definitions outlined in Chapter 3 of the VHP:
1) riverine (perennial stream), 2) mixed riparian woodland and forest, 3) coast live oak woodland and forest, 4)
California annual grassland, and 5) ornamental woodland. These land cover types and their acreages within the
site are shown on Figure 2. Details regarding the reconnaissance-level survey of the Project site are provided in
the following sections.
Methods
A reconnaissance-level survey of the site was conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist, Maya
Goklany, M.S., on September 13, 2016. The purpose of this survey was to (1) assess existing biotic habitats (i.e.
land cover types), and (2) map the top of the banks of Uvas Creek and edge of attendant riparian habitat using a
Geographic Position System (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy (Trimble GeoXT™). The final determination
of the boundaries of each land cover type was made using a combination of GPS data and aerial imagery available
from Google Earth software (Google Inc. 2016) ArcGIS® software (Esri 2015).
Land Cover Types
Approximately 0.44 ac of the riverine land cover type occurs along the northern edge of the project site within
the active channel of Uvas Creek (Figure 2). The stream is a 30-mile long drainage that originates on Loma Prieta
Peak in the Santa Cruz Mountains and flows southward to the Pajaro River, and ultimately empties into the
Monterey Bay. Flows within the reach of Uvas Creek that intersects the project site are controlled by Uvas
Reservoir and Dam operations, which are managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). At the
time of the 2016 survey of the site, the streambed was dry and inaccessible due to a fence on the steep southern
bank. As a result, the streambed and lower banks were surveyed with binoculars and no potential wetlands were
observed. Though observed to be dry at the end of the 2016 dry season, Uvas Creek is considered perennial in
nature because it would maintain flows through the dry season in the absence of management. In addition, it is a
blue-line stream (mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey) and listed as a “Category 1” and major watercourse in
the VHP.
1 However, see discussion of required riparian setbacks, below.
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Dr
Rivervie
w
Cir
AltaOakWayVillagePla
c
e
Figure 2. VHP Land Cover with Site Plan
February 2017N:\Projects3900\3929-01\Reports\Biological Impact Assessment\Figure 2 Site Plan with Setbacks.mxdGreenfield Drive Residential Project - Biological Impact Assessment (3929-01)
Legend
Project Site
Creek Centerline
Top of Bank
35-ft Riparian Setback
100-ft Category 1 Stream Setback
250-ft Riparian Setback
VHP Land Cover
California Annual Grassland (3.61 ac)
Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest (2.86 ac)
Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest (1.66 ac)
Ornamental Woodland (0.01 ac)
Perennial Stream (0.44 ac)
150 0 15075
Feet
Trail
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
5
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Mixed riparian woodland and forest covers approximately 1.66 ac of the site along the Uvas Creek corridor. It
extends from the lower banks of the stream to an upper terrace (Figure 2). On the site, this land cover type
exhibited good structural complexity and relatively high diversity of native plant species that are common to
riparian communities in the region. A dense tree canopy was co-dominated by mature coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) and Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii). Several large California sycamores (Platanus racemosa)
were also scattered along the stream banks, although this was not a dominant tree species. Dominant shrubs
included poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and trailing blackberry
(Rubus ursinus). Common herbaceous species observed during the 2016 survey were sedge (Carex sp.), mugwort
(Artemisia douglasii), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), the latter of which is considered “moderately”
invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) (2016). Several of these plant species, such as
Northern California black walnut, California sycamore, common snowberry, trailing blackberry, mugwort, and
sedge, were restricted to the riparian corridor on the site and were not observed in the adjacent upland land cover
types. Neither the VHP or the 2013 LOA report distinguishes the boundary between the upland oak woodlands
on site and the riparian woodlands associated with the Uvas Creek channel and banks. As mentioned above, the
VHP mapped the entire site as mixed riparian woodland and forest (SCVHA 2016), while LOA (2013) described
the upland coast live oak woodland in conjunction with the riparian woodland closer to the creek channel. Figure
2 shows the mapped limits of the VHP land cover type mixed riparian forest and woodland, as defined by the
VHP (ICF International 2012). The mixed riparian woodland and forest is distinguished from the adjacent coast
live oak woodland and forest by 1) frequency of flooding from the banks of Uvas Creek, 2) presence of differential
and multi-layered understory species associated with riparian habitats such as snowberry and mugwort, 3)
increased canopy density, 4) bank topography, 5) the ability of the trees to contribute allocthonous material (e.g.
leaves and woody debris) to the channel, and 6) the presence of a trail used by bikes and pedestrians that provides
a break in the habitat.
A grassland swale that was previously mapped on the site was included in the mixed riparian woodland and forest
land cover type. Although this area is a slightly lower elevation than the surrounding floodplain and may collect
water during- and immediately following storm events, it is not connected to Uvas Creek or the groundwater
table. Furthermore, the vegetation within the swale included curly dock (Rumex sp.) and senesced upland grasses
and was relatively indistinguishable from the surrounding forest understory, which supports a mixture of plant
species that have the ability to grow in both upland and wetland habitat types, such as sedge, mugwort, and curly
dock. Although the swale and other portions of the mixed riparian woodland and forest may meet the
jurisdictional wetland criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, these areas were observed to have soils similar to the
surrounding uplands and would not meet the hydric soil or wetland hydrology criteria for jurisdictional wetlands.
Approximately 2.86 ac of coast live oak woodland and forest also occurs on the Project site, extending into the
uplands to the south of the parcel. This land cover type was comprised of stands of mature coast live oaks.
Scattered shrubs were present in the understory and in small tree canopy gaps, including poison oak and
coyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis). The herbaceous layer included several patches of teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) and
poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) near the riparian edge, but was otherwise dominated by spreading
hedgeparsley (Torilis arvensis). All three of these species are moderately invasive (Cal-IPC 2016).
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
6
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
California annual grassland covers approximately 3.61 ac of the site. The majority of plant species that occurred
on this land cover type were senescent at the time of the September 2016 survey, and portions of the site had
been mowed. Non-native annual grasses were common throughout this area, including wildoat (Avena sp.) and
soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), amongst which several patches of native forbs were noted in areas with substantial
soil disturbance from ground squirrel burrows. Native forbs that were visible during the September 2016 survey
included madia (Madia sp.), Ithuriel’s spear (Triteleia laxa), and turkey mullein (Croton setigerus). Patches of yellow
star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a highly invasive species, and stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), another moderately
invasive species (Cal-IPC 2016), were also noted on the eastern edge of the site.
One additional land cover type was mapped on the southern edge of the site, ornamental woodland. This included
one tree overhanging into the site from an adjacent residence and covered just 0.01 ac.
Applicable VHP Conditions
Table 1 below describes all relevant VHP conditions and their general applicability to the Project. Additional
detail on specific conditions is provided in the sections below.
Table 1. VHP Conditions and Project Applicability
Condition Project Applicability and
Justification
Conditions on all covered activities
Condition 1. Avoid direct impacts on legally protected
plant and wildlife species
Applicable. Applies to all projects.
Condition 2. Incorporate urban-reserve system interface
design requirements
Not applicable. The Project is
outside urban-reserve areas and is
not adjacent to an area mapped
as high or moderate conservation
effort.
Condition 3. Maintain hydrologic conditions and
protect water quality
Applicable. Applies to all projects.
The Project will not directly impact
a stream channel or riparian
habitat. The construction of a small
portion of the proposed Class 2 trail
would occur within the VHP riparian
buffer (see Condition 11 below),
which is an allowed exemption.
Condition 4. Avoidance and minimization for in-stream
projects
Not Applicable. The Project is not
an in-stream project, and will not
directly impact a stream channel
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
7
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Condition Project Applicability and
Justification
or riparian habitat. The construction
of a portion of Class 2 trail would
occur within the VHP riparian buffer
(see Condition 11 below).
Condition 5. Avoidance and minimization measures for
in-stream operations and maintenance
Not applicable. Project is not for
operations and maintenance.
Condition 6. Design and construction requirements for
covered transportation projects
Not applicable. The Project is not a
transportation project and is not
within an rural area.
Condition 7. Rural development design and
construction requirements
Not applicable. The project is inside
the urban service area of the City
of Gilroy.
Condition 8. Implement avoidance and minimization
measures for rural road maintenance
Not applicable. The Project is not
for maintenance.
Condition 9. Prepare and implement a recreation plan Not applicable. The Project is not a
reserve.
Condition 10. Fuel buffer Applicable. The Project proposes to
construct dwellings within an oak
woodland land cover type, which
requires that at least 30 ft of area
around each house be cleared of
brush, flammable vegetation, or
combustible growth. Landscaping
will be designed to meet this
condition, which allows preserved
individual trees and landscaping
plants if these are “well-pruned and
maintained so as to effectively
manage fuels and not form a
means of rapidly transmitting
fire…to a dwelling or structure”.
Such landscaping would also be
consistent with the City of Gilroy’s
Consolidated Landscape Policy.
Conditions to minimize impacts on natural communities
Condition 11. Stream and riparian setbacks Applicable. A detailed discussion of
the VHP-required riparian setback
buffer is provided below.. All
aspects of the Project will adhere
to this condition with the exception
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Condition Project Applicability and
Justification
of the construction of a portion of
Class 2 trail. Recreational trails are
exempt from Condition 11 (see
Chapter 6 of the VHP), and may be
constructed within stream and/or
riparian setbacks. A small area of
grading for the proposed lots would
also intercept the setback as
currently designed. This proposed
grading should be adjusted to
avoid the VHP riparian setback.
Condition 12. Wetland and pond avoidance and
minimization
Applicable. The Project would not
directly impact wetlands, but all
covered projects are required to
comply with this condition to avoid
indirect impacts to wetlands and
streams downstream of the project.
Condition 13. Serpentine and associated covered
species avoidance and minimization
Not applicable. Serpentine habitat
does not occur on the Project
parcel.
Condition 14. Valley oak and blue oak woodland
avoidance and minimization
Not applicable. Valley oak-or blue
oak-dominated woodland habitat
does not exist in the Project site
parcel (however, see impacts to
trees, below).
Conditions to minimize impacts on specific covered
species
Condition 15. Western burrowing owl Not applicable. The Project site is
not mapped as occupied nesting
habitat and no especially suitable
breeding habitat is present. HTH
agrees with the determination by
LOA (2013) that burrowing owls are
unlikely to occur at the site due to
the paucity of ground squirrel
burrows and the presence of tall
trees in densities higher than those
preferred by burrowing owls.
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
9
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Condition Project Applicability and
Justification
Condition 16. Least Bell’s vireo Applicable. The Project site is
located within an area mapped as
potentially suitable by the VHP.
Condition 17. Tricolored blackbird Applicable. The Project site is
located within habitat mapped as
potentially suitable by the VHP.
Condition 18. San Joaquin kit fox Not applicable. No suitable habitat
is present in the Project site.
Condition 19. Plant salvage when impacts are
unavoidable
Not likely to be applicable. No
habitat types considered to be
suitable to support covered plants
are present on the Project site, and
no surveys for covered plants are
required as part of VHP conditions
for this Project. However, there is a
very small but non-zero likelihood
that a covered species would be
detected on the site at some point
during planning and site surveys,
and if this were to occur,
Conditions 19 and 20 would apply.
Condition 20. Avoid and minimize impacts to covered
plant occurrences
Not likely to be applicable, see
above.
Condition 3: Construction and Post-Construction Protection of Water Quality
Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to one acre or greater must comply
with State requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants under the NPDES General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water
Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent must be
filed with the State Water Board describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be
developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control,
treatment control, materials management, and stormwater management must also be implemented in a manner
that is consistent with VHP Condition 3. This will require that the riparian corridor and Uvas Creek be protected
from all construction-based run-off and spills that may emanate from stored materials or equipment. Additionally,
the Project must comply with the NDPES requirements for post-construction stormwater treatment, and must
also provide a site drainage and treatment plan that will treat all run-off before it enters the Uvas Creek corridor.
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
10
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
These policies require that all projects incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design that
prevents stormwater runoff pollution, promotes infiltration, and holds/slows down the volume of water coming
from a site. In order to meet these permit and VHP requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green
roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other
factors. The Project will also implement all applicable avoidance and minimization measures listed in Table 6-2 in
the VHP (ICF International 2012) to protect water quality during construction and post-construction.
Condition 11: VHP Stream and Riparian Setbacks
The VHP applies different setbacks to Category 1 and 2 streams depending on whether a drainage falls within
the urban service boundaries of the City of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. For Category 1 streams within the
urban service area in the City of Gilroy (as Uvas Creek in the Project site is), the setback distance is measured 100
feet (ft) inland from the top of the stream bank. The setback is increased by 50 ft for projects sited on
development areas with slopes greater than 30% to compensate for increased slope instability and higher
anticipated rates of erosion. It is HTH’s opinion that though there are some locations of greater than 30% slopes
on the parcel as per a slope analysis performed by Hanna Brunetti (2016), the increased riparian setback required
by the 30% slope condition does not apply on the Greenfield Drive Project site. The presence of some isolated
areas of greater than 30% slopes does not trigger the additional setback alone; the average slope of the parcel
must be greater than 30% as determined by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor according to the
formula provided in the discussion of Condition 11 Stream and Riparian Setbacks (ICF International 2012). While the
data provided by the Hanna-Brunetti (2016) slope analysis does not allow calculation of the particular required
formula, only 12.6% of the parcel has slopes equal to or steeper than 30%, indicating a very likely average of less
than 30% across the parcel. When the Project provides application materials to the SCVHA for VHP coverage,
the development area maps will be required to show site topography at 5-ft elevation contours.
In addition, under the VHP, if a site supports riparian woodland or forest that extends beyond the top of bank,
as is the case at the Project site, the setback is equal to either the riparian edge plus a 35-ft buffer or the setback
as defined above, whichever is greater (ICF International 2012). Figure 2 depicts both the 100-ft buffer from the
southern top of bank and the 35-ft buffer of the edge of the associated riparian forest canopy for clarity. At this
site, in some locations the 100-ft top of bank setback line is relatively similar to the 35-ft riparian canopy setback
line, while in other areas the 35-ft setback is wither more extensive or less extensive than the 100-ft setback.
Merging these two lines at their greatest extent forms the VHP-required setback for the Project site, despite the
Geobrowser currently showing the stream as a 150-ft setback (SCVHA 2016).2 Table 2 below lists the acreages
of land cover types that fall within the more extensive setback, which is the 100-ft setback in some areas and the
35-ft setback in others (see Figure 2).
2 Per personal communication with the SCVHA, HTH has confirmed that the required VHP setback is often incorrectly
shown on the Geobrowser for Category 1 streams, and the text definitions and methods provided in Chapter 6 of the
VHP (ICF International 2012) for determining appropriate riparian setbacks define the correct procedure for mapping
required VHP stream setbacks.
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
11
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Table 2. Acreages of Land Cover Types within the VHP Stream/Riparian Setback
Plant Community Approximate Area (ac)
California Annual Grassland 0.10
Riverine – Perennial Stream 0.44
Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest 0.62
Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest 1.66
Total 2.82
The VHP does not specifically define how the lateral extent of riparian land cover should be demarcated for the
purpose of determining the 35-ft setback that is mentioned above; however, we have demarcated this boundary
based on VHP land cover type definitions of upland coast live oak woodland and forest vs. mixed riparian
woodland and forest (Figure 2). Also, the landward edge of mixed riparian woodland and forest on the site was
determined based on a combination of definitions that are used by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), who is also a signatory of the VHP, and California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for riverine
wetlands.
The proposed 14 single-family homes with associated infrastructure elements including paved roads, curbs and
gutters, several detention and bioretention ponds, and lot grading should be located outside of the VHP riparian
buffer as described above and shown on Figure 2 as the outermost limits of either the 35-ft setback from the
riparian canopy or the 100-ft setback from top of bank, whichever is greater. City of Gilroy General Plan
requirements (Action 20.b Habitat and Urban Stream Protection; Policy 20.02 Creek Protection) require a much larger
buffer than the VHP, at 250 ft from the creek centerline. Currently, some of the proposed 14-lot Project as shown
on Figure 2 will fall within the General Plan setback. This is the largest identified site constraint, and the recent
design does not comply with the General Plan requirements that this 250-ft setback area be maintained as open
space. Lots will eventually be under the control of individual property owners, so lots that encroach on this
setback area, with or without grading, structure placement, or other improvements, may not be maintained as
open space as required by the General Plan.
The proposed 12-foot wide Class 2 trail may be constructed within the VHP riparian buffer shown on Figure 2,
as recreational trails qualify for an exemption from Condition 11 (see discussion of Condition 11 Stream and Riparian
Setbacks [ICF International 2012]). The current design of the trail would place only 0.044 ac of trail within the
riparian setback, and the proposed trail would be sited outside of the riparian habitat (Figure 2). Exempt activities
must implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to riparian corridors and
associated streams during the trail design phase and construction. These measures are listed in Table 6-2 in the
VHP (ICF International 2012), and those which are applicable to the Project are as follows:
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
12
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
29. Existing native vegetation shall be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate
the trail clearing width. Maintenance roads should be used to avoid effects on riparian corridors.
34. Use the minimum amount of impermeable surface (building footprint, paved driveway, etc.) as practicable.
35. Use pervious materials, such as gravel or turf pavers, in place of asphalt or concrete to the extent practicable.
39. Minimize alterations to existing contours and slopes, including grading the minimum area necessary.
48. Trails will be sited and designed with the smallest footprint necessary to cross through the in-stream area.
Trails will be aligned perpendicular to the channel and be designed to avoid any potential for future erosion. New
trails that follow stream courses will be sited outside the riparian corridor. [Note: the proposed Greenfield Drive
trail would not cross through the in-stream area, and does not need to be aligned perpendicular to the channel,
but the other design requirements in this measure would apply.]
57. When parallel to a stream or riparian zone and not located on top of a levee, new trails shall be located behind
the top of bank or at the outside edge of the riparian zone except where topographic, resource management, or
other constraints or management objectives make this not feasible or undesirable.
59. Trails in areas of moderate or difficult terrain and adjacent to a riparian zone shall be composed of natural
materials or shall be designed (e.g., a bridge or boardwalk) to minimize disturbance and need for drainage
structures, and to protect water quality.
93. When accessing upland areas adjacent to riparian areas or streams, access routes on slopes of greater than
20% should generally be avoided. Subsequent to access, any sloped area should be examined for evidence of
instability and either revegetated or filled as necessary to prevent future landslide or erosion.
Condition 14: Oak Woodland Protection
Valley oak and blue oak woodlands protected by Condition 14 of the VHP do not exist on the Project site.
However, the coast live oak woodland and forest and mixed riparian woodland and forest are both dominated
by coast live oak. None of these trees are currently street trees as defined by Gilroy City Code, but most coast
live oak trees on site would meet the definition of significant native trees under the City’s Consolidated
Landscaping Policy. This policy also states that a certified consulting arborist may be required for the duration of
the Project. Significant trees to be preserved shall be clearly marked on all Project plansets. As per the VHP
condition, preserved trees should be protected from all grading within their driplines and a buffer of 25 ft
surrounding the dripline. Ground disturbance within this tree protection zone should be considered to cause
likely loss of the tree unless determined to be not significantly impacted by the consulting arborist based on an
analysis of the specific tree and the impacts that have taken place within the tree protection zone. Depending on
the number of coast live oak trees to be removed (current plans would remove approximately 41 oak trees and
preserve an additional approximately 44 oak trees within the riparian setback), this could be considered a
potentially significant impact under CEQA. Land cover fee payment will provide some mitigation for this impact,
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
13
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
and full mitigation to a less than significant level under CEQA can be provided by utilizing replacement planting
opportunities within the riparian setback at a 0.5:1 ratio (planted oak trees to removed oak trees). It is not expected
that the Project would remove any of the riparian trees protected by Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game
Code.
Conditions 16 and 17: Least Bell’s Vireo and Tricolored Blackbird
The Project site is within an area mapped by the VHP as providing potentially suitable habitat for least Bell’s
vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Survey requirements under these conditions
can be met if a qualified ornithologist surveys the site and conclusively determines that suitable habitat is absent
for either species. The extensive stands of emergent wetland vegetation required by the tricolored blackbird were
not observed on site during the reconnaissance-level survey conducted in 2016. Least Bell’s vireo require dense,
multi-story riparian habitat with early successional vegetation. Though the site lacks early successional, dense
willow thickets, multi-layered riparian vegetation may be present at a marginally sufficient level within the mixed
riparian woodland and forest habitat on the Project site, and the site should be evaluated on species-specific basis
by a qualified ornithologist. If it is concluded that suitable habitat is present for the vireo in the riparian corridor,
preconstruction surveys will be required. If vireos are found, then construction monitoring will be required.
In general, the Project will need to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game Code
prohibitions on disturbing active nests of any native bird species. This may require nesting deterrence if the
Project intends to construct during the bird nesting season (February 1 to September 30 for raptors, August 31
for most species). Nesting deterrence may not be possible within the thick riparian corridor, in which case the
Project should plan to do pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and raptors. A biologist will determine the
extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100
feet for other species). If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we
recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are
scheduled to be removed by the project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February
1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the project due
to the presence of active nests in these substrates.
Development Area and Fees
As mentioned above, the parcel is within the urban development area, is less than 10 ac in size, and is in fee zone
B (SCVHA 2016). This means that permanent fees will be calculated on the entire parcel, irrespective of the actual
development area footprint for the Project. This will include land cover fees paid at schedule B for all land cover
types. The parcel would also require payment of riparian and stream fees if the Project were to impact these areas.
Although the Project may construct a Class 2 trail within the VHP riparian buffer, it will not directly impact the
mixed riparian woodland woodland and forest habitat on the site (or riparian vegetation), and thus,there will be
no requirement for these specialty fees. As the Project is expected to increase in daily vehicle trips over existing
conditions, it will also be subject to a Nitrogen Deposition fee based on the expected number of daily new trips.
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
14
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
The Project site parcel is not located in serpentine or burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) fee zones and therefore
the Project will not be required to pay these fees.
Other Special-Status Species Covered by the VHP
The VHP GIS files show the entire parcel as California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) primary habitat and
secondary habitat for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Compliance with all required VHP
Conditions (see above) should mitigate the potential impacts to these species below the level of significance for
CEQA.
Special-Status Species not Covered by the VHP
Impacts to species not covered by the VHP may still be substantial enough to require analysis and/or mitigation
under CEQA. Central California Coast steelhead are known to occur in Uvas Creek. Because the Project will not
directly impact the stream or associated riparian corridor, compliance with VHP Condition 3, which protects
water quality, will be sufficient to avoid impacts to this species. HTH generally agrees with LOA’s (2013)
assessments of likelihood for species occurrence. Although there is a small possibility for some special-status
plants without specialized edaphic requirements to occur on site, the habitat is of relatively low suitability for rare
plants and the small size of the Project make it unlikely that impacts significant under CEQA would occur. The
potential for significant non-covered special-status wildlife should be avoided through the requirement for pre-
construction surveys for the project for large bat maternity colonies or roosts, and San Francisco dusky footed
woodrat nests for the project, with follow up measures as necessary based on these surveys. These measures are
described below:
Mitigation Measure 1a: Woodrat Pre-construction Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for woodrat nests will
be conducted within the impact footprint by a qualified mammalogist prior to the start of work. The surveys will
be conducted between 1 March and 31 October, when woodrats are more active, and will be conducted no more
than 30 days prior to the start of work. Woodrat nests detected during the survey will be mapped and one or
more of the following measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 1b: Disturbance-free Woodrat Buffers. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round
residents. Therefore, avoidance mitigation is limited to redesigning the Project to avoid direct impacts on woodrat
nests to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10-ft buffer should be maintained between Project construction
activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if in the opinion
of a qualified biologist removing the nest would be a greater impact than that anticipated as a result of Project
activities.
Mitigation Measure 1c: Relocation of Woodrat Nest Materials. If active woodrat nests are found within the
Project boundary and avoidance is not feasible, then the woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the
removal of the nests and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. A
qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
15
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
outside of the Project activity area. Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be removed from the site; if feasible, these
materials will be piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub. The spacing between relocated nests shall not be less
than 100 ft, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher densities of nests.
Mitigation Measure 2a. Bat Pre-activity Survey. Prior to any removal of trees 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 ft
above grade, a pre-activity survey for roosting bats will be conducted within the impact area. The survey will be
conducted by a qualified bat biologist. No activities that would result in disturbance of active bat roosts will
proceed prior to the completed survey. If no active roosts or maternity colonies are found, then no further action
is warranted. If a large maternity colony or bat roost is present, Mitigation 2b or 2c will be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 2b. Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts, if an occupied bat roost is found in a tree that
would be disturbed or removed by proposed activities, the Project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of
the tree. If the roost is unoccupied at the time of the survey, the City may choose to install bat exclusion devices
to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior to the onset of the proposed activity. If avoidance
is not feasible, Mitigation Measure 2c will be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 2c. Exclude Bats Prior to Disturbance. If disturbance of an active non-breeding pallid
bat roost cannot be avoided, the individuals will be safely evicted between 1 August and 15 October or between
15 February and 15 March. Bats may be evicted through exclusion after notifying the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Trees with roosts that need to be removed will first be disturbed at dusk, just prior to removal
that same evening, to allow bats to escape during the darker hours.
References
Esri. 2015. ArcGIS (Version 10.4.1) [Software].
[Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2016. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Accessed
October 2016 from http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/
Google Inc. 2016. Google Earth (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com
ICF International. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August. Prepared for the City of Gilroy, City of
Morgan Hill, City of San José, County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and
Santa Clara Valley Water District.
[LOA] Live Oak Associates. 2013. Biological Constraints Letter for the New Hope Property project site, City of Gilroy, Santa
Clara County, California (PN 1773-01, July 29, 2013).
[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2016. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed October 2016 from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
16
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
[SCVHA] Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. 2016. Habitat Agency Geobrowser. Accessed October 2016 from
http://www.hcpmaps.com/habitat/
8.A.n
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Appendix B-3
Category 2 Stream Assessment
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210
Project # 3929-01
October 5, 2017
Michael Lisenbee
David J. Powers & Associates
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San José, CA 95126
Subject: Greenfield Drive Category 2 Stream Assessment
Dear Mr. Lisenbee,
The Greenfield Drive Residential Project is a proposed housing development located on an 8.59-acre (ac) parcel
(Accessor’s Parcel No. 808-20-008) in Gilroy, California. H. T. Harvey & Associates prepared a biological
resources letter report in October 2016 (final report in February 2017) to evaluate the proposed project for
consistency with the requirements for covered projects under the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (VHP), to
propose appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for the project., and to review a prior report
prepared for the parcel (Live Oak Associates [LOA] 2013).
The purpose of this follow up report is to summarize the results of a subsequent site visit to the parcel in
August 2017 conducted at the City of Gilroy’s request to determine if a swale that runs parallel to Uvas Creek
at the northern end of the parcel may be considered a Category 2 stream under the VHP, which would require
a 35-foot setback as well as the setbacks applied to Uvas Creek itself under the VHP. Our original assessment
of the swale included the feature in the mixed riparian woodland and forest and California annual grassland
land cover types. Although this area is at a lower elevation than the surrounding terrain to both the north and
south, and may collect water during and immediately following storm events, in September 2016 we saw no
evidence of regular incision or other indicators of ordinary high water marks (OHWM) typical of Category 2
streams or connection to the groundwater table. Furthermore, the vegetation within the swale included curly
dock (Rumex sp.) and senesced upland grasses and was relatively indistinguishable from the surrounding forest
understory, which supports a mixture of plant species that have the ability to grow in both upland and wetland
habitat types, including sedge (Carex sp.), mugwort (Artemesia douglasiana), and curly dock. We determined that
although the swale and other portions of the mixed riparian woodland and forest may meet the jurisdictional
wetland criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, these areas were observed to have soils similar to the surrounding
uplands and would not meet the hydric soil or wetland hydrology criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. LOA
evaluated this area in their 2013 report and reached similar conclusions.
The 2016 field season occurred after the first normal rain year in the area following several years of moderate
to severe drought in the early 2010s. The 2016 – 2017 rain year was much wetter than normal, and HTH noted
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
2
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
several changes in sites across the Bay Area as a consequence. To honor the City’s request to reconsider this
feature, principal plant and wetlands ecologist Kelly Hardwicke visited the site with Jared Bond of David J.
Powers & Associates on August 22, 2017. We surveyed the swale feature for indicators of regular flows used
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
both signatories of the VHP, and considered the guidance on mapping Category 2 streams provided by the
VHP. The USACE provides the most detailed guidance on the determination of whether an area should be
regulated as a stream, even if the stream is ephemeral and only conveys concentrated flows during and after
rainfall events. In non-tidal waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the OHWM which is defined in 33 CFR
Part 328.3 as “the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical
characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil,
destruction of terrestrial vegetation or the presence of litter and debris.”
The USACE has provided further guidance in interpreting the code for this region, expanding the types of
indicators considered to be useful for determining OHWM. Five relatively recent publications have attempted
to further refine the definition of OHW and the delineation of the OHWM in the arid west (including
California):
Review of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid Streams in the Southwestern United States
(USACE 2004)
Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and Their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of
“Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwestern Channels (USACE 2006)
Review and Synopsis of Natural and Human Controls on Fluvial Channel Processes in the Arid West (Field and
Lichvar 2007)
A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the
Western United States: A Delineation Manual (Lichvar and McColley 2008)
Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of
the Western United States (USACE 2010)
In addition, Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (dated 7 December 2005) deals specifically with the topic of OHWM
identification. That publication lists the following physical characteristics that should be considered when
making an OHWM determination: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) shelving; (3) changes in the
character of the soil; (4) destruction of terrestrial vegetation; (5) wracking; (6) vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent; (7) sediment sorting; (8) leaf litter disturbed or washed away; (9) scour; (10) deposition; (11) multiple
observed flow events; (12) bed and banks; (13) water staining; and (14) and change in plant community. Dr.
Hardwicke looked for indications of all of the above at the Greenfield site.
The swale is best described as a low, flat saddle between two hillsides, approximately 150 feet from toe of slope
to toe of slope at the western side of the parcel. It is approximately at the same elevation as the top of bank of
Uvas Creek, but is separated from Uvas Creek by a ridge. An ephemeral drainage/excavated feature located to
the west of the parcel drains towards this low area, through a culvert; however, all indications of regular flows
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
3
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
disappear before the boundary of the parcel. Compared to our 2016 site visit, facultative wetland vegetation
(vegetation that occurs approximately half of the time in wetlands and half of the time in uplands) had increased
in the center and western areas of the feature, both in area containing facultative wetland vegetation and in the
higher densities of wetland plants in some locations. The increase in wetland vegetation was driven in large part
by expansion of weed infestations of poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and Italian thistle (Helminotheca
echioides), which are both facultative wetland species. This is consistent with the very wet year preceding the site
visit. As described previously, this understory vegetation does extend into the surrounding canopy, and most
areas were still intermixed with a high cover of upland grasses.
No indicators of regular flows sufficient to create OHWM were identified within the parcel in the swale. There
was no erosion producing a shelving of the surrounding hillsides or any evidence of a smaller channel in the
wider saddle, though based on topography water does sheet flow through the area and/or collect and infiltrate
into the soil in the lowest portions of the swale during and after storms. A reconnaissance-level evaluation of
the soils within the swale confirmed the results of our earlier 2016 evaluation as no indicators of hydric soils
were observed, and there was no substantial differences in the character of the soils within the swale and those
in the surrounding hillsides. The hillsides themselves are not carved or eroded by current flows and do not act
as banks, so no bed and bank habitat claimed by CDFW exists.
There was also no indication of more subtle signs of ordinary flows, such as sediment sorting, vegetation
damage indicating flows, or drainage patterns where herbaceous vegetation is matted down in the direction of
flow. No wrack of debris was present, and leaf litter within the swale did not show the typical signs seen in
ephemeral streams in oak woodlands of being washed along a concentrated flow of water to be transported
and collected in areas where flows would deposit small debris. The only area where vegetation was absent
(which can be a sign of regular flows) was a footpath denuded by repeated traffic. The broad sheet flow area
narrows at the eastern boundary of the parcel and finally exhibits concentrated flows capable of erosion where
the sheet flow turns to the north around the eastern toe of the northern hillside between the swale and Uvas
Creek. Here, the bank has eroded back, but this area was already included in our original mapping of the top
of bank of Uvas Creek, and a Category 1 setback has already been applied to this area. The area does not meet
the VHP requirement of “stream channel must have enough flow under present-day conditions to maintain
channel form and to move sediment” required under Criterion #2 of Condition 11 of the VHP for mapping
streams nor is there a clear U or V-shape to any part of the swale, aside from the wider (approximately 150
feet) saddle topography.
For these reasons, we do not find that the area is consistent with the type of feature that would be claimed as
a stream by either USACE or CDFW, and therefore would also not be consistent with a Category 2 stream
under the VHP.
Although there were no signs of a Category 2 stream within the swale, the increased wetland vegetation in the
swale means that it is possible that marginal seasonal wetlands may exist in the swale. The hydrology for these
wetlands would be provided by overland sheet flow infiltrating in lower areas. Sheet flow would be expected
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
4
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
to move very slowly through this area, as the slope is so flat. In one approximately 40 feet by 10 feet location
near the footpath, a small depression exhibited soil cracking, which can be an indicator of wetland hydrology.
Again, although no hydric soils were identified in the swale in either reconnaissance level effort, a formal
wetland delineation effort would be required to determine if any areas of the site meet the definition of
jurisdictional wetlands. Such an effort would install several formal soil sample pits to a depth of 22 inches to
determine whether hydric soils are present in any localized areas. If marginal seasonal wetlands do exist, these
will likely be located in a mosaic with upland areas that lack hydric soils and/or wetland vegetation (as many
areas are dominated by upland grasses). Only in areas with both a dominance of wetland vegetation and hydric
soils would the USACE (and Regional Water Quality Control Board) claim jurisdictional wetlands. We estimate
that no more than 20% of the areas of wetland vegetation shown in Figure 1 would be considered wetlands,
and depending on the results of the delineation soil sampling, it is still entirely possible that none of the areas
meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands.
Our understanding is that the Project currently consists of 14 single-family homes with associated infrastructure
elements including paved roads, curbs and gutters, several detention and bioretention ponds, and a 12-foot
wide Class 2 trail. The trail would potentially impact the wetlands as shown on Figure 1. The VHP allows for
wetland impacts, although a specialty fee is required for direct impacts to wetlands. No specific setback distance
is required by the VHP for jurisdictional wetlands, although Conditions 3 and 12 provide avoidance and
minimization measures to protect wetlands in and adjacent to VHP covered projects. Design requirements of
Condition 12 that the project would be subject to if jurisdictional wetlands were confirmed on the site include:
Locate septic facilities, if used, at least 100 feet from the edge of a wetland or pond if space allows.
If the runoff from the development will flow within 100 feet of a wetland or pond, install vegetated
stormwater filtration features, such as rain gardens, grass swales, tree box filters, or infiltration basins,
to capture and treat flows.
Plant native vegetation (shrubs and small trees) between the wetland or pond and the development
such that the line of sight between the wetland or pond and the development is shielded.
Recommendations
We recommend that a formal wetland delineation be conducted on the parcel to determine the boundary and
location of jurisdictional wetlands on the site, if any exist. The USACE would then visit the site with a
representative for the delineation effort to determine whether they agree with the mapping. The USACE would
then create a legal jurisdictional map that would provide the legal boundaries of wetlands forming waters of the
U.S. on site. The VHP map would then be amended if necessary, and specialty fees assigned if the trail cannot
be designed to fully avoid impacts to the wetlands. Impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to a less than
significant level by compliance with VHP conditions and payment of wetland specialty fees.
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
5
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Please contact me at (408) 458-3236 or khardwicke@harveyecology.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D.
Principal, Senior Plant and Wetlands Ecologist
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Greenfield Dr
Rivervie
w
Cir
AltaOakWayVillageP
l
a
c
e
Trail
Sheet flowconcentrates
Culvert
Figure 1. VHP Land Cover with Site PlanN:\Projects3900\3929-01\Reports\Biological Impact Assessment\Figure 2 Site Plan with Setbacks.mxdGreenfield Drive Residential Project - Biological Impact Assessment (3929-01)
October 2017
Legend
Project Site
Creek Centerline
Top of Bank
35-ft Riparian Setback
100-ft Category 1 Stream Setback
250-ft Riparian Setback
Sheet Flow
Potential Wetlands (20% wetland / 80% upland)
VHP Land Cover
California Annual Grassland (3.61 ac)
Mixed Oak Woodland and Forest (2.86 ac)
Mixed Riparian Woodland and Forest (1.66 ac)
Ornamental Woodland (0.01 ac)
Perennial Stream (0.44 ac)
150 0 15075
Feet±
8.A.o
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Appendix C
Archaeological Literature Search
8.A.p
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.pPacket Pg. 311Attachment: ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.pPacket Pg. 312Attachment: ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.pPacket Pg. 313Attachment: ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.pPacket Pg. 314Attachment: ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Appendix D
Preliminary Geotechnical Report
8.A.q
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 316Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 317Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 318Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 319Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 320Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 321Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 322Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 323Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 324Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 325Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 326Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 327Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 328Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 329Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 330Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 331Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 332Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 333Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 334Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 335Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 336Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 337Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 338Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 339Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 340Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 341Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 342Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 343Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 344Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 345Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 346Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 347Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 348Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 349Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 350Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 351Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 352Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 353Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 354Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.qPacket Pg. 355Attachment: ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Appendix E
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil
Quality Investigation
8.A.r
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.rPacket Pg. 357Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 358Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 359Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 360Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 361Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 362Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 363Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 364Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 365Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 366Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 367Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 368Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 369Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 370Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 371Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 372Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 373Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 374Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 375Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 376Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 377Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 378Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 379Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 380Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 381Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 382Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 383Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 384Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 385Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 386Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 387Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 388Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 389Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 390Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 391Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 392Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 393Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 394Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 395Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 396Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 397Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 398Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 399Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 400Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 401Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 402Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 403Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 404Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 405Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 406Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 407Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 408Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 409Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 410Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 411Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 412Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 413Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 414Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 415Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 416Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 417Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 418Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 419Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 420Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 421Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 422Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 423Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 424Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 425Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 426Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 427Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 428Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 429Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 430Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 431Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 432Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 433Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 434Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 435Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 436Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 437Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 438Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 439Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 440Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 441Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 442Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 443Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 444Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 445Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 446Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 447Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 448Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 449Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 450Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 451Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 452Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 453Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 454Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 455Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 456Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 457Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 458Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 459Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 460Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 461Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 462Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 463Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 464Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 465Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.rPacket Pg. 466Attachment: ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.s
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Project Plans TM 16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.t
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Conceptual Retaining Wall Detail TM16-
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429
http ://www.cityofgilroy.org
June 7, 2018
Planning Commission
Brad Evanson, Planner
Kristi A. Abrams
DIRECTOR
Tentative Map TM 16-02, Greenfield Subdivision A request to
subdivide 8.56 acres of undeveloped land into 14 residential lots
plus 3 parcels to accommodate private streets, stormwater control,
and an open space buffer between the residential lots and Uvas
Creek
1) Request: Tentative Map TM 16-02 requests approval to subdivide the
approximately 8.56 acre project site into 14 single-family residential lots and 3
parcels to accommodate private streets, stormwater management facilities, and
open space along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the Uvas Creek
riparian area and flood plain. Development of the single family home lots is not part
of this request, and would be processed under a separate request at a later date.
The project site is located north and east of Las Animas Elementary School at the
northern terminus of Greenfield Drive, and immediately south of Uvas Creek, APN:
808-20-008. Application filed by John Taft/R.J. Dyer Real Property Investment,
Inc., 1230 First Street, Ste. 204, Gilroy, CA 95020.
2) Recommendation: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends
that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying Tentative Map TM 16-02.
3) Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is presently
undeveloped open space consisting of mixed woodland sloping down to the north
towards Uvas Creek, with mature trees and shrubs throughout the site.
LOCATION EX ISTING LAN D USE G EN ERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site Vacant Low Density Residential R1
North Uvas Creek Park and Recreation PF Facility
South Single Family Residential Low Density Residential R1
5.E
I Packet Pg. 122 7 I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
East Single Family Residential Low Density Residential R1
West Future Park -Glen Loma Glen Loma Ranch ND Ranch Specific Plan
4) Environmental Assessment: Per California Public Resources Code Section
21080.b.5, projects rejected by a public agency are exempt from further processing
under CEQA.
At this time, the City has not finalized the environmental review for the proposed
development. During a meeting with the applicant in March 2018 , the applicant
demanded a copy of the Administrative Draft of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) document. They were advised that staff review had not been conducted,
and that it was not recommended to provide the draft to them until it was finalized .
In addition, the applicant was informed that if the Administrative Draft is provided to
them , then it would become a public document in whatever form it is in. At the
applicant's insistence, the Administrative Draft of the MND was provided to them
upon City's receipt in April 2018. This draft document is attached to the report for
reference , and is provided in its original form. At this time, staff has not analyzed,
modified or finalized the Administrative Draft MND for public review.
5) Background Info rmation: On November 2, 2006 the City Council approved a
Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) Small Project Exemption (SPE -06-04)
for a 14 lot residential project on the subject site. That SPE approval was
predicated on a conceptual subdivision layout that did not propose any lots backing
up to Livas Creek, but rather included a site layout comprised of a concentrated
cluster development and preservation of significant open space and natural
resources. The residential lots for SPE 06-04 ranged in size (3 ,111 to 6,357 square
feet) and included a significant open space dedication comprised of more than half
of the project site, primarily within the northern portion of the site adjacent to Livas
Creek, more than 5 acres (see attachment). The SPE site plan included the creek's
riparian areas within the project site, as well as a large parcel (approximately 1
acre) at the site entry to preserve an existing grove of oak trees. All of the
residential lots were situated along one side of a loop road to preserve natural
resources and trees and maintain a view corridor to the creek for the enjoyment by
all community residents and visitors.
In early 2007, Tentative Map TM 07-02 was subsequently filed for the subject
property. Like the conceptual subdivision considered for SPE 06-04, TM 07-02
consisted of 14 residential lots. However, the proposed residential lots were
substantially larger than the SPE 06-04 concept (ranging in size from 6,174 to
30,035 square feet). In addition, the site plan did not utilize the previous perimeter
road layout, and several of the proposed lots backed up to the Livas Creek riparian
corridor, thereby eliminating "eyes" on the open space buffer between the
subdivision and the creek, which creates a safety concern as well as a resource
protection issue . On April 27 , 2007 , staff deemed the application incomplete, and
cited the proximity to the riparian area and the deviations from the original concept
2
5.E
j Packet Pg. 1228 j
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
considered for SPE 06-04 as issues that needed to be addressed in a revised site
plan. After more than a year of discussion regarding riparian habitat protection and
setbacks from the creek involving the applicant , the City , the environmental
consultant, biologists, and representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, and Santa Clara Valley Water District,
the applicant stopped discussion of the application . Due to inactivity, on September
23, 2009, the City determined that the application had been abandoned , the
approval of SPE 06-04 was also revoked, and both files were closed.
Tentative Map TM 16-02 Application:
On May 17, 2016, the applicant filed a new application for Tentative Map TM 16-
02, and was granted RDO allocations from the pool proposed for the April 2016-
April 2017 period. As the proposed layout of TM 16-02 was similar to that of TM
07-02, many of the same objections raised in 2007 and 2008 exist with TM 16-02
as well. The same concerns about lot sizes and site layout, including lack of
protection and preservation of natural resources and open spaces were identified
early in the process. Although the application was deemed complete for
processing, Section 65944 of the State Government Code allows staff to request
additional information to clarify , amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the
information required for the application. As such, staff continued to work with the
applicant in an effort to redesign the subdivision layout in such a way as to
minimize concerns about res idential lots backing into the riparian area of the creek ,
so that staff could present a favorable recommendation (as desired by the
applicant) to decision-makers .
After reviewing the initial application through the TAC process, the project was
deemed incomplete and comments were provided to the applicant by the assigned
contract planner on June 16, 2016. Comments covered many of the topics that
were discussed in the previous application, including proximity of residential lots to
sensitive habitat areas, proximity to the flood plain and riparian boundaries ,
drainage concerns, and concerns about tree preservation. On July 13, 2016, the
applicant submitted responses to the June 16, 2016 letter. On August 12, 2016,
after reviewing the resubmittal through the TAC process, the application was again
deemed incomplete . The layout remained generally consistent with the initial
application, and several comments pertain ing to the engineering of the site
(updated geotechnical study, questions about public vs. private streets, stormwater
management, etc.) were not addressed by the applicant.
On March 20, 2017, seven months after the City's second incomplete letter, the
applicant submitted their responses. They expressed concerns about the length of
time the environmental review was taking, but that they had reviewed the biological
and arborist technical studies and prepared responses to address issues raised
and move the project forward to Planning Commission for approval. During this
period , a different consultant became the case planner for this project. The new
contract planner (different from the first two submittals) submitted the response
and plans to the TAC for review, and on April 17, 2017, deemed the application
incomplete for a third time . In this letter, the site layout (which had not changed
from the original submittal) was pointedly identified as something that staff was not
3
5.E
l Packet Pg. 1229 I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
able to support. The lack of a perimeter roadway (similar to the supported layout of
SPE 06-04), close proximity to Uvas Creek, and removal of prominent stands of
trees were re-stated as key concerns . The planner further recommended that the
site be redesigned and processed as a Planned Unit Development to properly
address the City's concerns with the application. On May 15, 2017, the applicant
responded, expressing frustration over the City's continued reiteration of the site
layout concerns.
On July 12, 2017, the application was deemed complete. Within the letter of
completeness, it was stated to the applicant that staff was not likely to support the
proposed layout and encouraged the applicant to redesign the project consistent
with the direction given in the April 17, 2017 letter. For 8 months, the project
lingered without any revisions or significant actions as requested of the applicant.
In December 2017, staffing changes occurred again with reassignment of the
project to another contract planner. At that time, another letter was sent to the
applicant, reminding them of staff's intentions to proceed with the request with a
recommendation of denial. Instead of taking this time to redesign the map to
achieve staff support of the application, on March 3, 2018, the applicant
responded, and expressed their frustration with the application process, different
planners being assigned to the application, and staff's continued focus on issues
such as the riparian boundaries and setbacks from the proposed residential lots.
The applicant stated that they believe they have made "good faith" efforts to
address all of the issues identified by staff, in an effort to gain staff's support for the
application.
On March 15, 2018, a meeting was conducted with the applicant and staff
representatives. Discussion covered a range of topics, including the open back
yards adjacent to the creek, the riparian setback distance , and the applicant's
continued desire to gain a recommendation of approval from staff. The applicant
offered some solutions to the issues, including either an easement or open space
dedication between the creek and adjacent lots, and the application of some
CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) elements such as
"brambly" landscaping with thorns , double fencing, and surveillance cameras to be
installed behind the lots. The City agreed to review their resubmittal, and continue
to push the environmental consultant to complete the environmental review.
On March 23, 2018, the applicant's attorney submitted a "litigation hold " letter to
the City, advising the City of expected litigation regarding this application and a
demand that the City retain and preserve any and all records, documents ,
correspondence, and other communication regarding the application. At this point,
it became clear that the requested site revisions would not be forthcoming, and
that staff needed to move forward with a recommendation of denial based on the
plans as submitted.
6) General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site
for Low Density Residential uses, which supports the proposed project request.
Unfortunately, the project is in conflict with several goals and policies of the
4
5.E
I Packet Pg. 1230 I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
General Plan. Key goals and policies, which pertain to the proposed project are
discussed below:
POLICY# TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
1.01 Community Design -Pattern The proposed subdivision does constitute
of Development: Ensure an infill development. However, the project
orderly, contiguous pattern of does not encourage compactness via
development that prioritizes clustering development. Furthermore, it
infill development, phases does not encourage preservation of open
new development, space by proposing the removal of a large
encourages compactness and number of mature trees, and does not
efficiency, preserves avoid incompatibilities by proposing
surrounding open space and residential uses abutting the Uvas Creek
agricultural resources, and riparian area
avoids land use
incompatibilities.
20 .02 Open Space and Habitat The proposed subdivision would promote
Areas -Creek Protection urban encroachment into the Uvas Creek
corridor, potentially impacting the
ecological, aesthetic, and recreational
value of the creek.
20 .08 Open Space and Habitat While preservation of these lands should
Areas -Open space areas be strongly encouraged, they should not
dedicated to the Parks and be dedicated as part of the City's Parks
Recreation system and Recreation System , due to long-term
management and liability issues.
Participation in the Santa Clara County
Open Space Authority, and dedication of
these open space lands to the Authority or
other public agencies , should be further
explored as a means of ensuring long term
preservation and management of non-
recreational open space .
7) Conformance with Zoning Code Development Standards: The proposed
development is located in the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. In
accordance with the Gilroy City Code (GCC), the proposed subdivision would
create single family residential lots that comply with the applicable development
standards for the R1 zoning district. Private streets are proposed for the
subdivision, and the applicant has stated that a Homeowners' Association would be
created to maintain the streets. Private streets are required to be developed to City
public street standards . As no residences are proposed at this time, the minimum
lot size is the relevant development standard that would apply to this project.
Should the subdivision be approved, single family residences could be developed
in accordance with the applicable development standards (setbacks, lot coverage,
building height, etc.) and an approved Architectural and Site Review permit.
5
5.E
I Packet Pg. 1231
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Applicable development standards for the project have been considered for the
proposed pr~ject, as follows:
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS?
Minimum Lot 6,660 SF 6,660 SF -21,890 SF Yes
Size
Minimum 36' right of way, including 36' right of way, including No
Local Street two 11' travel lanes, two two 11' travel lanes, two 7'
Standards 7' parking lanes, and parking lanes, and either
either two 16' public two 16' public service
service easements for easements for sidewalks,
sidewalks, or one 16' and on the street that is
public service easement adjacent to the future park
and one 1 O' public by Las Animas School,
service easement for one 16' public service
streets adjacent to easement
existing city parks
8) Staff Analysis for Tentative Map (TM 16-02): In accordance with Section
21.41 (i) of the Gilroy City Code, initial approval of a tentative map is valid for
twenty-four (24) months. Such approval may only be extended at the Council's
discretion.
a) Site Layout: The proposed layout for TM 16-02 creates 14 single family lots
and 3 parcels to accommodate open space preservation, storm water
management facilities, and private streets. The subdivision would be served
by a loop road extending from the northern terminus of Greenfield Drive. Two
lots are located on a sloping portion of the site and would necessitate removal
of several mature oak trees. The loop road would be double-loaded with lots
on both sides. Lots 9-14 would necessitate retaining walls and ultimately back
up to the Uvas Creek riparian area. This layout is concerning for staff for many
of the previously mentioned reasons. The residential lots backing onto the
Uvas Creek area present a potential security issue, with minimal visibility there
is the concern for illegal access to the backs of lots and future homes.
Furthermore, the proximity to the riparian area presents a potential conflict
between the habitat and the future residential uses . Finally, there are concerns
about residential drainage flowing directly into the Uvas Creek riparian area,
and whether the proposed bio-retention ponds are sufficient, given the
topography of the site.
b) Lot Sizes: The R1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,660 SF.
Tentative Map TM 16-02 proposes 14 residential lots ranging from 6,660 SF to
21,890 SF. Parcel A, primarily open space, is approximately 161,000 SF in
size. Parcel B would accommodate the streets, and Parcel C, which is
approximately 13,300 SF in size would accommodate stormwater
management facilities. These are discussed further in subsection E below.
6
5.E
I Packet Pg. 1232 j
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
c) Density: Gross density is 1.6 du/acre, which does not comply with the R1
Single-Family average site density standard of 3 to 7 .25 du/acre (GCC Sec .
30.5.10). Removing the open space dedication and calculating net density
returns a proposed density of 2.9 du/acre , which still does not meet the
minimum density of the R1 Single-Family designation. Because there are only
14 dwelling units allocated to this project under the City's Residential
Development Ordinance , additional residential lots cannot be used to comply
with density standards.
A redesigned site with more open space dedication (such as was previously
proposed under SPE 06-02) could satisfy the density standards. No homes
have been proposed at this time, but the expectation is that the applicant
would provide one dwelling unit per lot, consistent with R1 lot densities
established in GCC Sec. 30.5.40 .
d) Circulation: The subdivision sits at the northern terminus of Greenfield Drive ,
and the original intent was that the private loop road would be named
Greenfield Circle . Since then, the applicant has proposed four names for the
four sections of loop road : Moses, Noah , Faith , and Hope, and a Homeowners'
Association has been proposed to maintain the streets. Should TM 16-02
progress through the process affirmatively, the applicant would need to work
with staff to finalize the details with the Street Naming C ommittee p r io r to
consideration of a final map.
e) Open Space : Parcel A is approximately 161 ,000 SF (3.7 acres) and would
comprise the open space dedication for the Uvas Creek riparian corridor and
flood plain. This is substantially less open space than could be provided with a
cluster Planned Unit Development layout. Such a layout was considered and
approved by the City Council for SPE 06-04, and the open space parcel for
riparian buffering was more than 5 acres in size. Parcel C is located behind
Lots 1 and 2, and would accommodate two bio-retention ponds for stormwater
management. The applicant proposes to dedicate Parcel A to the City, and
Parcel C would be maintained by the proposed Homeowners' Association . The
City has concerns about the dedication of Parcel A due to a conflict with
General Plan Policy 20.08 regarding dedication of open space lands .
f) Off-Site Improvements: Offsite improvements are relatively minimal with this
subdivision. One improvement needed is tying the existing terminus of
Greenfield Drive into the new road extension into the subdivision. This also
necessitates acquiring a right-of-way dedication of 720 square feet from the
future park site owned by the City directly west of the project site. The
adjacent park site is within the Glen Loma Ranch specific plan.
Other off-site improvements involve construction of a retaining wall between
the project site and the open space at the connection of Riverview Circle and
Village Place in the Villagio Tract immediately east of the project site. In
addition , completing the connection between the existing Class 1 bike path
7
5 .E
I Packet Pg. 1233 I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
adjacent to Riverview Circle and the project site would be necessary. Finally, a
Class 1 bike path proposed in the open space dedication along Uvas Creek
would be extended into the Villagio Tract to connect to the existing bike path
adjacent to Riverview Circle. These improvements would add approximately
530 feet of dedicated bike paths consistent with the Bikeway element of the
City's adopted Transportation Master Plan.
g) Property Dedications and Easements: As part of this subdivision request ,
the applicant proposes to dedicate to the City of Gilroy a 161,000 SF parcel as
open space along the Uvas Creek corridor. Additionally, public service
easements would be dedicated along the street rights-of-way. As noted
previously, the City has concerns about potential safety and security issues
with this configuration. Residential lots backing directly onto an open space
that does not have much visibility presents opportunities for criminal activity
and illegal access to the rears of lots and homes. The need for additional
security patrols by the City may become necessary due to the proposed
layout.
h) F-l'NDINGS: TJte Subdivisron Map Act reql!.lires certain find ings be macJe in
sthaatioDs where a tentative m ap re q uest is , en.i'e d. B ased on the discussion
and a na lysi s provi·ifed herein, the ' Fanning Commission is [equest e·a t o
co nsider these findings of deni'al:
T e prori.rose-d Tentat ive Ma2 i,s n ot consistent w ith the intent of ffie g.oaf:s
and poli c ies of tl'le C ity's G e ne rali 131an. Spe·cifi.calliY,,
(1) The proposed map does not meet the minimum density for the Low
Density Residential General Plan designation
(2) The proposed map proposes removing mature trees in a riparian
area, impacting the Uvas Creek riparian corridor and demonstrating
inconsistency with General Plan Policy 1.1
(3) The proposed map would allow urban encroachment immediately
adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor which could impact the
ecological, aesthetic, and recreational value of the creek. This
demonstrates inconsistency with General Plan Policy 20.02
Per Government Code Sec. 66474 (Subdivision Map Act), a city or county
legislative body must deny a tentative map if it can make any of the following
findings:
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general or specific plans.
c . That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
8
5.E
I Packet Pg. 1234 I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
g . That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the proposed subdivision.
In accordance with the above, the following findings for denial are consistent with
Government Code Sec. 66474 (Subdivis ion Map Act):
1. The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City of
Gilroy General Plan (GC Sec. 66474 .b), specifically:
a. (Policy 1.01) The design of the subdivision does not encourage
compactness via clustering. Also, the design does not promote
habitat preservation by necessitating the removal of stands of mature
oak trees.
b. (Policy 20.02) The design of the subdivision does not promote
protection and preservation of the Uvas Creek open space area due
to residential lots that back onto the creek riparian area (urban
encroachment), and potentially impact the ecological, aesthetic, and
recreational value of the creek.
c. (Policy 20.08) The design of the subdivision would create an open
space parcel within the Uvas Creek riparian area to be dedicated to
the City . It is the City's policy to not accept such parcels due to long -
term maintenance and liability issues.
2 . The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed (GC
Sec 66474.c), specifically :
a. There are numerous stands of mature oak and other trees on the site
that the proposed subdivision would remove. A cluster-type
development would minimize impacts to these features by
encouraging compact development patterns that could better avoid
the stands of trees.
b. The City of Gilroy's practice regarding development in the vicinity of
Uvas Creek and other riparian or recreational corridors has been to
prohibit residential lots from backing directly up to the creek or
recreational area. The recent developments within Glen Loma Ranch
adjacent to Uvas Creek were configured as such, with a single-
loaded perimeter road buffering the residential development from the
Uvas Creek corridor. The proposed development proposes to back
several of the larger residential lots up to the Uvas Creek corridor,
despite staff encouragement to consider a single-loaded perimeter
road as a buffer. Additionally, such a configuration was originally
proposed for this site and granted a Small Project Exception (SPE
06-04) by the Planning Commission and City Council.
As such , staff supports denial of Tentative Map TM 16-02 by the Planning
Commission.
9) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering,
9
5 .E
j Packet Pg. 1235 I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Building, Police, and Fire representatives for internal review and comment. The
TAC considered the project six separate times, most recently March 21, 2017 and
March 16, 2018 . Concerns were noted by Police regarding the potential public
safety/security issue of concealed access to rear of residences from the Uvas
Creek corridor. Engineering expressed similar concerns and also expressed
concerns about drainage into the Uvas Creek corridor from the lots that would abut
the corridor. Concerns were also noted about the adequacy of the proposed storm
drainage functionality, given that some lots would drain directly into the Uvas Creek
riparian area, and whether the topography of the site would impact the
effectiveness of the bio-retention ponds, as discussed previously in subsection A.
Pursuant to Section 21.41 (a), the Tentative Map was distributed for consideration
by various departments and utility agencies.
10) Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD): Project plans were routed to the GUSD
for review and comments . GUSD representatives did not have comments on the
proposed project but noted the development falls within the following school
boundaries: Las Animas Elementary School, Ascencion Solorsano Middle School,
and Gilroy High School.
11) Noticing: Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of
the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy using current ownership data.
On May 16 , 2018, notices of this Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the
property owners along within other interested parties. In addition, the Planning
Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage.
12) Appeal Procedure: In accordance with Section 30.51.50 of the Gilroy City Code,
the Planning Commission's decision to deny the subdivision request may be
appealed, in writing, 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. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced Project Plans
3. TM 16-02 ADIS (Draft)
4. SPE 06-04 Site Layout
5. Recommended Resolution TM 16-02
10
5 .E
I Packet Pg. 1236 l
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
~ §~ ao ~~
8:~
!2t;'J ..,.
~~
i1c
~~ fw
;;~
8~ ;,~
'::8 ,<
~w ,/:
0
0~
"w <u ~~ •s :~ c< "' §• d ~· ..
~~
i'i~ -~ oU
i~ 3•
~~ ~~ ~u we 12s •• w<
~~ ~-~~
~ii'.
i'~
~i
So ~· f~
~~ ,u
~~
i'i• la'
~· -~ .. ~~ g~
~~
ig
~~ ,:•
:ll~ "< "• ·~ ~;' ,
~~
iZ"il YJCIN ITY MAP
u::::.'JN05CAL£
ABBR£1;1ATIONS
N:. ASl'HAi.TCONQ!£TE Fl flOl'UE
A8 ~C.,,T[BASE C CASUNE .. --"' "'"""' BC BEQNIQIC or CUM: C8 Ql,l,DCBR[AIC
""'""""' an QJTNR[fCIIPCI.£
BOC BA010fali!I r;,v C,UE VAL'<{
80 6LDWll't If' IICIIPCINT
8W' BA!!B'IIIAEFDICE IHV IN\O!Tllf"PIP[
!:ATV CA8!.!TD.£\1Sl!1I IP RON PIPE
Cf C,\.IC>IB"51N .P JDjNTPOl.E
0 OJR!IIIUT JT .KllNTIRENOi
Q. C(Him.JNE LP LOWPDIKr
OIP COARIJCAlEDMETAi.PIP( IJA)( M,t,DIU I.I
CO QL\IIWT MIN l,IJNJliUII
CQ,IC COHOU:TE NJ.C. NOTINCONTRACT
IJ OR!JIIN.£T CHJ O',{!!l!U.UUTUTY
Clf' IJUCTil(lft(tjPf'E OS O\£JIF\.OW S1AJCI\Jt[
DWr ORl'EWAY P6 PlllBO,
E D.rClRICUN£ Pl PRIJ'EJIIYl.1€
EC E)C)Of'"Q.R','{ P.S.E. PU1lJCSER'AC[[A5Dl{HI
EC ElOSTINGGR.-OC P.5.0.E.PIIVAT[SltlfiWCl'I.IINEASEM(Nf
n.EV El.£VAn~ Pl\ PONT CF \IEJlllCAI.INID&Cll!JI
EP EDCE CJ"PA',0,100 RtP RONF'ORCOICCHOIETEl'I'£
£R EJ()Of'R£ruRN 11/W AIQI TCJ"'IIAY
(E) E»SIIHC SD STtJl!J DANN PIP(
fr FN91 Fl.OCR SS SAHITAIIYSEIIEJIPIP[
FC FH91 CR.I« STU STOA.II OR.lift MMHCU
FH FIIEHYOIU,NT SSMH SAAITNIT SEIIEA MmHCU
SI' SERIICEPOU;
LEWill
EXIS'llllC
CONTOOREI.EVATION
....!.,....l.!!,...~~.....,-WAT[IIIJAIN
t"'°J 1rJ-IS11•s.Cr*l5l'lJIIJ ORA1N
_,__f-,IJIJtrt<h):t1 •s-r,:-IS,\,llllARYSEWEII
@
C:
~ .
__,.
-l
@ .
y .
El!CIROUOI
FtOlll'OlltCTIDH
IRtJ'llll.ET
IJ ANHOI.E
""'""'' WA!ERIJEIER
FlAEH'l1JA,•JH
WAIDI\I.IJ.\{
"'""' ',tJIIICAl.o.REI
====MB&CUTTE!I
-JT -JT -JOINTIRENCH
AETANNC 'II.Ill
SEIERV.TOIM.
J81: mt£ ID££ RDICMD
RI
(uo1•1AIP<l0S Pl f UU MlO 'tl111 W.l :01t1I SUfldPIIICJd 1>1~npe~ a u,1114~i:i1,
Tentative Map
for
TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive
STD STOONIO
SW SllE'"'-'
t TW'.PHCflEIJIE
Tall IDIPOWIY B(H()llURK
JC n:POF"CU!II
iUI TOPOF'BNIC
ioc TCEore.wc
"' """' W WA1UI LN:
Ml WATD1 IJE1UI
W WA1Di ~.IJ.',1;
\
\
\
\
-' ,\
,\
0
l'tJl',10J5/IFEfl~M5Ullf'Ml'..I.REATIBI..[ '"l""""T fOTALPRO.(CT I """" I '"''"'" ACREM:C or l OTS AREAor IIPER'AOOSSUFACE IIPOIVIMSUFlfAC(
l»SllA!IAN<l (I.I) AREA (LI) AREA b -~
a.5fi·1 ··u I mm r--o I s1.76v
EIISllNC OI' I ""'"" .. I RD'l.ACIDPEJNOJS RE?l.ACm PERIHlUS
SUAFI.CE AREA (L~ Sl..f!F'AC[ AREA (1.I)
a
l!l!.lE:.
USTorPI.JNNfD
SIORIJWATER
~ll!Ol.t.lEA9.J<ES
Bl(J!(TENTIOHPCHO
'IIHDIE THE FIRM ~ H,IHIIA a: !!RU!E"m OtlES NOT PRO~D[ ctNSTRUCTION STAKES. SAIO FRI WU
ASS1Jll(HORt!i'CYIS8UIY'lf-lATS<E;'.£R FOlf IIPR0"91DITSCOISTRUCTED n!E!IEFROM.
NOTF TO CONJRACTOR
a pn 808-20-008
in the
City of Gil roy
Santa Cl ara County, Californ ia
A P N
I
~
O.JT t,06 J± C.Y.
FUl. 20.721:t:C.'f.
tF IHIS PRMCT HAS D'C£S5 DIRT THAT 1111.l fK: OfT-H•UUD 10 A
SIIE' *fHI~ CllllO\"S OJY Ulllr.;. All ~DQn!WAl P(Ri.a'T IS Rt'.CIIJl/l'(D,
EXJSll NCLNDOICRDU HOUTIUIIESAAr!itlO'IIN!N l}l!JR
IJ'P!IOXJl.lATELOCAIIONSBASEDONR£Clllm!N,ORWATION
A\l.lll..ABL.EillTHE(HCIN(EIIATTHE llllEorPRE!'ARAnON
orTHtsEPL.ANS. lOCATIONIJAYNOTHA\{BEEN',ERIF'IED
1H THE FlWI A/10 NOCU.IJINlltEIS N.\OE ,l,S TO THE ACCUIAC'f
OlfCOlf'I.Emj(SS(J'Tll(ff'ORIJATI!;N9IOIW. THEctNtRAC~
91Al.LNOl'l'YUllJT'l'CO,I.PNIES.lTl.£AST2'IIOIIOliCO.l'l'SIN
.\DVNIC[c,rCONSTRUCIIQ'tfOFE.DtOCAIEUllilll
C.I.U. UIURCROJNO u .... a Al.fRT I\J.5..1..), AT 1-800-642-2~4'.
ITSt!Al.Lll: lllEAESPCNSIIUT'l'or IHECl)(IIIACIOA illOCIOIUt.t
IIIEElll!ITTJl<lAlt>tOC.lllONOl'UllI1£SSHO._.ONnlESEPLANS.
lliDCATED ti 11iE rnll BYlOCAIIIC SDNcr'.S. ell E\ltOIC[ DY
FACI.JIB't1S91.!ATOR,l,OJl,CENTIOl}IEJOOSITE. NIY
.IDCITIONM. COST INMFl£D ,l,S A RESll.T or THE CONtRACTIR~
Ft.UJRE lO Ol'YLOCATIDHS OF OISTINCUTIUTESPRIOA fO
BECNIINCCONSTl!IICTIO,'SHAI..Ll!(OlllNEBTTHECONll!ACTtHI
'~:OS SltBI !)RAIN 0\0lfl.OWSIRUCl\JR(
CCNtRAClOlf ~ tHAl Ht SiAl.l .1$..11( sa.E ANO COIIFU'IE RCiPON9SUIY nR J!ll SITE
CCfOTIONSDURIHC ff CCUISE or C<JtSTlalCTIOH or THIS PRO,[CT, INCl.\.ONC SAF'EIY or Al.l
POISONS ,1,'10 PRtl'ERIY; ?H.I.T ltlSREOOflOJENT St!AU. APPUCONTl«JllaY AND NOT BE UMIED
ill NORIUL MJRIONC ~S; ANO n!AT THE COlfTR.lCTIR !Jl.1,1..L DCFOO. lf(lOINFY 00 HOlD IH(
OVOl ,IHQ IH( DICINEDI HNUILESSF'ROII ,!HY ANO AU U.18UTY, R[Al 0A liUECED, IN COl,'NECTION
NTH lHEPERfCllll,l,'l(t OI' IGlK ON IHISPRO.CCT, EXCU'TtlCTCfl UASUIY .IJIISNC f'ROll lME
SQLIIEQJCENC!:ornlEOiiNERCflENClllEDl ,IN() IS DEEi/Eli INOJ.m ANO U(RC(l) IN THE CONTRACT UNIT P!ilr:t.
DATt: ____ ,e
HANN,1, -BRUNETTI
AMANOA JOY Mt/Sf-~
RC£ 69214
f:XPIRf:5 6-J0-18
.NQIES;_
I, tr.lJIOIACOLOCIC.IJ.RESOJIICE'SORIWANl!OIAINS AA£0ISCO',tJ1Ell0URIIIC
CONSTII\ICTION,WC0:SHAU.8[11.1J.l!DNIHN50~1UIS{150f!£T)orH
F1'1l l.fl11.lfCAN If: EVACUAltD BTA QJAUFa) PROF'ESSIONAL N!CMA(Q,.OQST.
ff1HEFHll5~TERlilllEOTO&SIQfflCANT,APPR<J'RIA1[1JlllCAnCWMEA5URr5
guu If: rtAIWliD NIO IMPlf)J(NfED.
F IUUII RDJMIIS ARE HUI> o.Atlt CCIISTIIUCTION OIER!: SHAU. If: NO ruAM:R
EXC,WAtl(II OAOISl\lRBAN<lOF' IHESlfE tRAHYNEAR9TNIEAR[ASCfllll.Y
SU9'ECTEDill0"6UCAOJACEHTHLMNIIIOIAHSUNIII.TH[CQIIONE!lorSANtA
CU,IIA COIJ'fT'l'ISCONTACTED TOOE1EJIIJJE TMAT NOlll\6TICATION OF' lME CAUSE: or !OlM IS R£llUIIEO. F nc CCACINE!I DE1Uilffi£S 11£ l!E),l~S lO II: NATI\{
.WERICAN 1l£ COA!HR SHALL C1lNTACT 1HE NATIVE AMDICAN 1£RlTAa: COINSSION
\lliHN2'HW1S. nl(NATI\{ .WOICAH HfRITAa:COMIJ!SSON 5HAU.UNTifYn1£
PERSONORPEIISOHSlfl!ElJE\{Srtllf:nlEWOSTLKCLYOESaNOENl(IIUl)f'RlJI
THE DEIDD NATM: AIIERICA.'I. i\j[ 1U WAY THEN WAKE A;;COMl,IDIOATION 10
THELAHOOYl,(A OR 1l£PERSONRt'!!'IIISl8l.EFOll 11£EXCAVATIDH IIICf!K.nR
IJEANS or TREATWCOR tlSPOSINCtl', NTH APPROPRlAtrDICNllY, lHEHOMAN
RDl,IIIIS ,111[1 A5SDOA1EOCAA\{C0WS ASPRO\o10EDINPUBUCRESOJRCISCOOE
SECTIONSOg?.114 1HELAN0D'lf([ll<RHISWTHORIZED~ESEIITATI\{SHAL1.ROIURY
1MENATI',£AIJERICANHUWAHROIAINS»«lASSOOA!EDCRA',£COOOS'IIITHAPPROPIAIE
OICMT'l'ON 11£Pll(Jl[R!Ytl AL0CATIONNOTS1IB.(CT illF\lRl}l[FIDIS1\Jl!BAN<lF:
G) 11£ NATI',£ Al4RICAN HEFIITACE C1)1MSS1Ci'11S Ull.1.11! TOIDEJITIF"T A 1411 CA !}IE
Y..DFNI.EO IDIJAI(( Af(COIAIEJIOAIION WIMH2'H0URSAF1ER!IEIIICl«lllOE09Y
IHEC!JIMSSION.
b)MDt!lJClEllllllEllllf1£DFAII.Sill.U4kEARECOl,O,IEIIOATIOH:IR
;) THE l..lN00-0 IR HIS AUTHIRIZFll ~TATI'o'E R£.(Cts Ill( AECOIIIIEMJATIOH
OF' M CUCIN!JENT. AND I}£ l«DIAllCH IJY K NATIV[ AWERICAN HERIT~
CCl,IIIISSION FAU fO P!!0\40C ~ ACCE!'l.iaE ill 1HE lNiOOWN[II.
~CflAIEMFOU.OWIICNOltDN11£PROJ[CT"I.J.HS, FAIIOiAEQ.OQC.IJ.
RESOORC!SIRHUMANRD,(.l.ffl.lREDISCO\OiEDDI.IIIHCCOHSTRUCTION,MJIM91AU.
BE H.IJ.IED WlttlN 50UE1ERS (16S rm) or n!E f'lNO uNnl A OJM.100)
PRCfES'SION.IJ..u!OIAEQ.QSTCANEVALUAT!lT. lrTHEflNOISDEIERMINEDlOll:
SlCNIFIC.t.NT, APP!ICF'RIAIE IJHlCAIIDH IJ£AS1JRES SHAU 9E ~CJlll\A.ATED ANO
a!Pl!M EIIIED.
PROJECT SUMMARY
~'SPARCtl.tulSEA
ZONINC
NU!iEl[IIOF'L015
TllTAl.AREALOl5
A\'EllACE:lOfSIZI
eol!-20-008
"'""" \IACJ.NT
ua.09!! s.r.
10,SJ!S.f .
21!~-StREET
FLOOD ZONE STA lEMENT
ctll.llUNJT'l'P.t.NO.MJM!(R:0606!C07521i
COIAIUMIYMJMB£R: OWJ40 (OJYor QROI'}
MAPRE\4SEll:tJ U1!,2009
PRQ.ECT IS LOC.I.T!D IN ZONE O .\NO AE
, ...
ARE.lSIN'IIHlOtFtOODHAZ.lll05AREUICOERU11£D,llUTPOSSSU:
''""' BASEFlOCllEI.L'IAntNSOEIEJll,INED
Ol'INER /DEVELOPER
JO.INTAF'T
AJO'IER mo rRST sll!E:Er
Cl.R(JT,u\95020
CIVIL ENGINEER
IWINA&.llllM"TII
765100£!£RRTSlllEIT
Cl.ROT,CA95020
OFTitt: alQIIM2-217J
r.o:;40a8'2-J662
OIM.:OONEERINCGlANNA811UNEm.C()J
SHEET INDEX
COO 9£ET
2-4 GRACING &: ORA!NAG[ PLAN
aJ T AND FU Pl.AN
Sta>£ ANALYSIS I.I AP
FIRE iRUO: T\JRNINC EXHIBIT
STORMWATER I.I ANACEMENT Pl.AN
STORM W-'TER ffiEAlNEN T DETAILS
"I~! . -~ ~: I
0 0 • u: .. :u
0. Q) • ro -~ . ~ ~:
Qi
(l) 'E > 3l
:.::; c'.5 ro N +-' 0 C c1, (l) ......
I-~
~ I ~ I
~ 11 ::) m! ~~ .:' ii z z
1 g •• •• -.-r-r-t -
~
!
i
SHEET
1
or,
~
oO
•"
", .•
0~
•"
~
~
i!
16011
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
~ ~~
!~ SEE~E ~J f~, """"ii'ATCH LINE
!!!i:'l ~;
;*
~~ -~ g~
l,u
~~
s* ~~
~tl
ti~
i~
!~ -~ "• §i i; -~ ~= ·~ 1j0 •" ei
ciii ~-~~
>F a< ii ..
~~
ffi. ez .~ =" ~~
iii" •" co •• S• ii ~. f, .. •• 1i~ fa ~~
"[ ~. •,
./0 •• •• ~.
~~
e~
0 ~
I ~
0:;
.. -·
,.:i
+·1"
\ ·-.......... .
\./"'
I\!~·-==~······"
PDl~lS
Sc!i T\· .... .., ....... ;·["":.:.-.'.
II ·[ ,,,..Cj/,i'"' i •..
-.._ti,f(ENVtlOPE '
-:o ,~" I
Xr; n· oAJt -niOt
Tll BC_.l!DICMD
-:~~:;/~:: .. ----·
!uo1•i,,1pqns Pl•IJUHJO ·E0-111 Wl : aiu) 1ua1d .alOJd J)tlonpe11 :iuaw4on1y
43
---TRA C T NO !!,.l-0 -r
V)l:-L~O ---
4 2
---
"" ' '
--~'1/AU..ZJDO ,.,.,,..,
6°0.C.EADIWAY 1/229.0
OOIO.&EXPOJY
tHO M~Q!l'l'ALI. 1/227.IJ ---"''"'~ ,,,,, ---
----I OTYSTD.WH
"" ' '
lllllLEL!!IJ.'
/ 4 &•EW '
OUil,ET STRUCTIJR ~
"""'
Ir: .... ;
12'
~/
"
45
POIOTYSTNID.+JIOl'l.»I S1R-J1A
HOPL.ANl,M£DC£.FUICECfl01HEROOS1RIJCnCNMATBE
Ole! JFUT 1.BOI{ THE nP tll'aJRS WIHN IHlS AREA.
(OTY00JES.:Cn0H10.eo)
. 'G~~~~SE~
I DR.l)'EWAY..
/ .... ···If~ MAX) ··t ..
DRIVEWAY APPROACH SCHEMATIC -LOT 1
SCll(:!"•10' '\. I Dlll'IEWAY N'PROADI PER arr STNll,l,Rl)PLAH sm.11,1,
" CIIAOINC SO€ME oll'F\.IES TO ORI\OAYS tP1 LOIS I, , & 5.
~ -----3-9----'~ -------------------------!: ··= . r; -
•• 0 • \,,, ' ,.
•< ...J TR AC T i N O u ' '\. i ./ t {;j •••~ •• • .,. S I , ,, . . •. . '"' •"',, ' ·, ··-·
a -3 2· "o ' , ,. / "~'." "
., " > • • ,, '
~g z -+... : / 1 '\ lz
.. . l _,,
" • o ,
1
-·-... """: "o" "" • • • 0 """ " ,.,,,, •• ,
~~ 0:: ,, "
~c (!) ,s'> D<TE, """""T """
., "" .. "' :•.:. 1i =:::: ....... .
111a. DATE
aw CHECKED BY, ~ =m ~e
~~ "F
GRA PHIC SC ALE
k.-• .w--.
Grading & Drainage Plan
TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive -apn 808-20-008
2
~
~
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Tl-1E USE Of Tl-1ESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHA.LL BE RESTmClEO TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR \\11101 Tl-1ET '-ERE PREPARED ANO PUBUCAn()N THEREOf IS EXPRESSl.T UMJTED TO SU01 USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BT ANT METHOO, IN 'M-IOl..E OR PA.RT, IS PRCl-i1BIT£D.
TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS IN THE ENGINEER V.,THOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT v.iTH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE Of"" THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRIC TI ONS.
"• ..
~
~
i
~ •• • ll I
)>
11 z z ,l' ; i~ Ji C ·! ~
~
w
~1c "' m>
m~
::f
mr :I~
I
I
I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
THE USE Of THESE PLANS AND SPEClflCAUONS SHAU. SE RESlRlCTEO 10 THE ORIGINAL SHE FOR 'MllOi THEY 'McAE PREPARED AHO PUBLICAUON THEAEOf IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SU01 US£. REPRODUCTION OR PUSUCAUON BY ANY METJ-100. IN MiOl.£ OR PART. IS PRQ-i!BllEO.
TIRE TO THE PLANS ANO SPECIFICATIONS REr.lAINS IN THE ENGINEER 'MTHOUT PREJUO!CE. VISUAL CONTACT 'MTH THESE PLANS ANO SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSUTUTE PR!r.lA F"AOE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF" THESE RESffil CTIONS.
~
i! ~
al ll)
Cl a. "'-· Q ::S /
CD (0
CD I po
CC '
~· -, ~IQ
CD ll)
~ 5·
'g ll)
(X) (0
~ (1)
9 ""C
8 ll)
(X) ::,
z
a,
~o; Q?
"' ? • ~ .;
1'1~~ I
FIGIIIFWAT I
r I
"'"'"' ' i {
«· 1 "'<!l""' " ~
('"-~
' «' "'<!l""' -+ '
r
""""
~~.!!.!!!/
FIIGITIFWAf
'
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
li•u·e.t~I
~J11V~
J. J N n O ~
910l J.HVnHB:J.:1 n.i
AOH11!) .JO All~~
SA!JO Pl8!JU88JEJ zo-g ~ 1/11.l i=====::i-----,,
I
l
I
l
f
ue1d 11!.::I pue in8
Ov
'
' '
i \
f • '· .. ll I ~ ~ __j _____ lil i•
IX) ~~... -U I
I .,.~~ :j: 15 ~
e i !il -~ 2 -.s ~ ~ --... "' c.,
'\
'\
----
zv
.+
~.,,.~
------:,.f,,+
----· ----~
£v
·----------.~':;;:::..·,
.,,.,..,,....,.,.,.,, ••11 11 liHCU.3fllfflOIN'1•il:B31'!118"1N.)
1.U.'3Nn_;j8;,NNVH •• '" ..... ·-·----·-
0
•I CO LO o
d z
~
:.l/)
0 ·o
9
~_,......-j]ui
"' M
.:. 1.· -... . -· . .... --··-·----
'SN0U:Jl1:US3N 3S3H.1 .:10 3:JN'vld3:J:'.)'v 3H.1 .iO 3:JN3011\3 31:J'v.:1 'v l'flNd 3.UUUSNO:J TIVI-IS SNOUV:Jl.:103dS ONV SNV1d 3S3H.1 HlW. .1:J'viNQ:) ,,msll\ "Dl0nf'3Nd lnQH.lW. N33NON3 3H.1 NI SNIVW3~ SNOU'v:Jl.:11:JJdS ONV SN'fld 3H.1
"(J]JIQIM(Hld SI 'llfVd 00 3101--11,1. NI "00Hl3N AN¥ J.8 NOU'l:::inend ij0 MOUJn()()YdJij ·35n K>llS OJ 03.l.lNn .11SS)HdX3 SI J03ij]Hl NOUYJnend ONY 031fVd38d 3~ A]Hl K)IIW. l:IOJ 31.lS '"NN~Rt() ]Hl 0.l 03.lJIW.SJH ]8 TNIG SNOU'IJl:103dS QIN SNV1d JSJHl JO 35n ]Hl
~
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
37
33 "" ----r--'( ", "
34 35 \
40 \
. I '
/:_a ,'\. --------------
""
/
_/
/
/
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
3'
't
3'
0 w
z
0
-...J
Q) :: g
~
\ \
,w
(J)
en
5
d
0
IJl
I
~ ,~
•····· ......... .
3.2\ij>
+ •. _
.
·---;--/
I
3 3
ltEV ISIONS: a DATE 1----+----"'_:sc_,_'"n_,_" __ -+---< --HANNA,;.~2UNE:TTI
1---1---------+-j 1111 CM.~~
3 7
DATE: F£8RUARY 201 8 REFERENCES
no mz . scALE=-"""'""-----r-------i
VE:111'. SCAU::JiruL__-/------1
DESIGNED UY:.Md__
O!lAWN llY: TM
' '
i
I
I
,3 8
L..
•" +~'1,
' '
\
40
'\ ~Rf ----3-9---'~ ---~:
C <
\
Fire Truck Turning Exhibit
TM 16-02 Greenfield Dri ve
\
~
I
crrr or-(.;ILROY SAN T /I CLARA COU NT Y
FEBRUARY 2018 CAL I Foiu:1>.
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
~ §~
!!!~ oe
~~
~~ ~; ~-~~ -~ ~!
8fu /au wu >< i* ~~
ii ~· •" .. oo -~ jj ~· ~~
~~ ,~
/jO ,u
e:J
OMA 2
~: >z 'o '" c,j< .u OMA S
t8 -~ ;~
;i;i
OMA 7
~a'.
ti~
ii" ii"
Ot.lA9
o/a •• o. ~~
orAREA AREA SElf-Tl!E,\TI NC H.lROSCAPE,'1lOor REOJIRED(sr) """""' I ""~ I LANDSCN'E I TRE,\lllENT AfltA I lREAIMENT A/IE,\
(sr) AIIEA(Sf) (SF') PER O:R1A.E
TCM 1 I S:::ta: 1 11,1;1 e1 12,l'S
"'"""'
TCM 2 I S:~r& I sms J J,J9e
LANOSCN'E
TCM J I =~1'& I JB,7741 25,200
LANOSCAPr
=~\.,JJS,0641 2J,J25
LMOSCN'(
:'~\,IJa.so1 1 ~.9s,
LANCSCN'(
TCM6 1 S::~T&!e.s201 4.sos
LMOSC.oJ'E
TDl 7 I S:~\I e.1sJ I s,Joe
LMOSCN'E
TOl8 1S:~1
1:1 e.ee4 1 6.178
LANDSCN'E
TCM 9 I s:~T& I 7,646 I 1,299
LN<DS<»'E
5,473 '"
1,677
1J,S74 "'
!l,7J9
8,553
4,015
J ,485
2.706 "'
6,547 '"
(IHIISl'IIP<l"li Pl•U!>N.10 ·icHII I'll : 0 1£11 •u~1d pefDJd pa311p,ay :iuaw~~e)l'<f
TREAlMENTAREA I lREAllJEIH I IR[AlllfNT I rl'PE!T PROWEI VOLUM E REQU-'IED VWJME PROWEJ TIIE,\llJ [HT
(SF') (a) (CJ") PROIIDED
BIORETENTION
.,, BIORETENTION
1,640
1,459
2.129
'" '"
"' "' 290 8/0RETENTION
BIORETENTION
.. ~8 '4% OF IMPER\10US AREA IN EACH OMA REQUIRED TO TREAT STORMWATER ~. f,
~~ • a~ ia
~j -~ ~-•,
,io
z/a •• !i. ·~ /az
;~ "• ~~ .. wz •a i!~ ..
~~
oo ..
tj(i
cc 8V ~~ ,g
•< "" a:~
~[IDATE
_R_tVI:SIP~S: I I DE:SCRIPTION I BY: 111 11 HANNA.;~ .. ~UNE:TTI /a" ~! ~-~~ ••
•
CIIILENGtlEERS•I.JllDSlJRI/EYORS
CONS'TllUCTIONIWIAQERS
~
REFERENC ES
CHECKtD BY:
DRAWN' BY: f---------j ~~~y" OF' Cll:g,\
" "
SEE SHE ET 9 FOR
STORM WATER TREATMENT
"' DETAILS
\
I v --
\ \
"' N " ··\ " >V
\
\
\
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------
I
I
0 I
" I
, , I
/ ch
T
',.
\
\
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
//
I
r--
"'
GRAPI-UC SCALE GR EE NFIE LD DRIVE
~---.J_J....( i
,;,.,~~)IL
Stormw a te r Manage me nt Pl an 8
TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive -apn 808-20-008 ~
SANTA CtA;~\iC/o UR~;;1JOB NO. 16011
I~ w
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
THE USE Of THESE PLANS ANO SPEOnCATIONS SHAU. BE R£S1RICTED TO TH£ ORIGINAL SITE FOR 'M11CH THEY ¥,£RE PR£PARE0 ANO PIJ8UCATICN lliEREOf IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO Sl/Ol USE. REPRODUCTION 0A PUBUCAn<lN BY ANY M£Tl-100. IN l'IHOLE OR PART. IS PROHIBITED .
TIT\..E TO THE PLANS ANO SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS IN THE ENGINEER 'MTHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT l'IITH THESE PLANS ANO SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRJI.IA FACE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF TI-IESE RESTRICTIONS.
•' C ,o
•'
' .
0 -.
(J) -~ 0 .,
3 'P ~ 0
"' Ill 'il -<D CD <D .,
i a: -i
r ;
" !?. .,
< CD
<D Ill
' -; ~----------------'
ID 3 'O ::, CD CJ) ::, 0 ~ -"' 'i' 0 0 CD 51 -e? . . . 'in ,
:
~ . . .
0
0
C
z
" ' ~ i z
0
.;; ~ co
9
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
1st Ad Draft
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative
Greenfield Drive
Residential Project
File No. TM 16-02
Prepared by the
March 2018
5.E.c
-C
0
"iii :~
"C .c
:I u,
:!:!
Cl)
~
C
Cl)
Cl)
(5 I
N
; I
~
I-
u,
i5
<(
N
0
I
<D ....
~
I-
+' C
Cl)
E
J:
CJ ns :::
<(
! Packet Pg. 1247 j
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
!c;ENERA ~ PROJECT CONDITIONS
1. Approved Plans. Approva l of Tentative Map TM16-02 is granted for approved plans stamped as "Approved on October 15,
2018" ("the plans") on file with the Planning Division . Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified
in these conditions . Any future adjustment or modification to the plans shall be considered by the Community Development Director or
deslgnee, may require sepa rate discretionary approva l, and sha ll conform to all City, State, and Federal req uirements, including
subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. (PL, G-1)
2. Developer. Dev eloper means permit app licant, property owner, operator, permittee, lessee, and/or tenants usi ng the space(s)
for the intended use(s). Developer shall comply with project conditions for the life of the project. (CA, G-2)
3. Indemnification Agreement. Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer's own expense, to defend,
indemnify, and hold ha rmless the City of Gilroy {"the City'') and its officers , contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agen t s
from any and all claim(s), action (s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys,
employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this re so lution or any condition attached thereto or
any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, done or made prior to the approval of such re so lution that were part of the approval process . (CA, G-3)
4. Acceptance of Conditions. Failure to appeal this decision in a timely manner, or commencement of any activity related to the
project, in understood to clarify Developer's acceptance of all conditions and obligations imposed by this permit and waiving any
challenge to the va lidity of the conditions and obligations stated herein . (CA, G4)
--( Commented [js1]:
1~-IC:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tJ!l~e~eFR~J31~et~e~t~1,~e ':l"~'!!Je~t~ie~e !):Bff:!l:!'a~Rel~Y~se~R~e~st~ri~et!i<ie~R~s:!'a~R<!:d §:C~eR~d~it~ie~R~s"'::!f~el'!'rFR~,::""~sii'!Rg~tR~e~----J Commented (js2]: This would subject the future lot
f~~~th the SaRta Clara GewR~ ReeerEler Befere the CJ~• iss1Jes lrnilEliRg J;Jermits, er appre.,es owners to having either the building permit conditions,
fe68FSa.t+eA-ef a PiRal Map, Oeueleper shall suSmft...#le erigiRal eempleteEI, sigReGI aREI Reta~meR~mmumty
!lev&l8t>meM-!lif0619H>HlesiRR•• (Pl, G 91 arch/site conditions recorded against the title of each lot. I
already defeated this after discussing this with Gabe on a
prior project. I also notice the document is not attached for
our revi ew?
~. \&later L.lmitatisRs AGkRe•••ledgemeRt blevet~e•••leGges that beeause sf•••ater limitatie~R the Cit,, B•,• its •••ater
J:IFS ielers, appreoal af this perFRit e:Jees Aet guaraRtee tha~J iss1:1e S1:1ileliRg J3ermit:s. lss1:1aRee-ef buileliRg permits FRay-be
elela 1e8 aAel su~plemeAtatieR aAS/er eemJJliaRee •••itR FRaRe:Jateel • •ater eeASeP•atieR er alleeatieA 13laAs. (PL/P1A/, G lQ) This
ins inuates that the City has water issues which is does not. New condition?
7. Covenants and Restrictions. Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the project property shall be
cons istent with the terms of this permit and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or this permit,
the City Code or this permit sha ll preva il. (PL/CA, G-11)
8. Enforcement Action. If Developer, owner or tenant fails to co mply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer,
owner or tenant shall be subject revocation or other appropriate enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated
with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant. {CA, G-7)
Commented [js3): Th is is designed to create uncertainty
and harms the projects ability to obtain financing.
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
eemp lete all Fe~1::1ifee-&ffsite-aA~te impFe emeAts Felateel ta the pFejeet, iAe l1::1eliAg stF1::1et1::1Fes, pa1tiAg, aAel laREiseapiAg, 1::1Rless
etheP ise alleu ed B1 tRe Cemm1::1AiP, Qe• elepmeAt QiFeeteF, eF stateel iA these eeAelitieAs. (Bl, G 8)
10. Expiration. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the approval date if the final map is not approved prior
to the initial expiration date of October 15, 2020. (PL, G-12) subject to two 12 mo nt h exte nsions pe r Ca lifo rnia Map Act.T
11 . Extension Requests. Shou ld Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to
the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. On ly timely requests may be considered
pursuant to the City Code. She1:1 ld the prejeGt appre,.als eKpire, aUeeatieAs gFaRted fer 14 resiBeAtial l:IAits p1,1rs1::1aRt te Gilrey City.-G&de
SeetieR 3Q.§Q.6Q sha11 likewi~~
PLANNING DIVISION STAN DARD CONDITIONS
12. Subsequent Permits. Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating any new construction or modifications
authorized under this approval, including but not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas, model home
sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications. Deve loper shall pay all req uisite fees in effect at th e time
of plan submittal and/or issuance, as applicable. (PL/BL, PL-1)
13. Archltectural and Site Review. Architectural and Site Review shall be obta ined for development of fou r or more residential
parcels within the project, pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.41(a)(S).
14. Building Plan Details. Deve loper plans for building permit applications for future residences shall identify al l exterior building
materials and colors, including product and finish manufacturer name, co lor name and number, and surface finish type (e.g. stucco
with sand finish, plaster with smooth finish) to be used in construction, subject to review for compliance with Zoning standards. This
shall include review and requirement for compliance with the site design requirements of Gilroy City Code Section 30.5.50 whic h
specifies that new residences shall have at least 3 of the following 5 design elements to different iate from residences on adjacent lots
o n the same street frontage(PL, PL-2): How does any house not have A thru 07 We w ill have semi-c ustom ho mes des igned for eac h lot
and w ll l not repeat eleva tio ns.
(A) Floor plan.
(BJ Front Elevation.
(C) Roof Design.
(D) Ex terior Materials.
(E) Reve rsed floor plan .
Commented ijs4]: Acceptance of the tract and occupancy
are distinctly different Late condition
Commented [jsSJ: This site is listed as a priority infill site
i n the housing element LATE CONDITION
1l
1d~~~';""~d~lt~l·;·~·~·~·;P~l·;;·~'~•;t';9;•;"~elal~;;·'2'~"~·1
~
1
·~·~bmit-f>~· ~~I·~·~· ~ta~aiit-t~··~·l~"~"·~·G"ffi" ~·1
~
1
·~·~
1
·~· !"~··:~m··~"~"~,t~i·~·~·~f~a~li-Ge~~~-~-~~~l'f)iir<>~~·1~·'!:1
~IA~is'..---j Commented [js6]: This is not a conditional use permit. permit, as aelepteel B•t the eleeisieR mailer. (Pb, Pb 3) New Co ndition? Not all project conditions survive to t he individual lots .....
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
116. Landsca e an d Lighting. Prior to issuance of graaiflg-bui ldin permits, Developer shall submit a combined landscape and lighting
pla n to verify location of street trees and street light standards shall not conflict with drainage plans, landscape plans, tree locations,
parking spaces,~tfl~l=l laRet 1=1se eeReerns . (PL, PL-6) VAGUE
17 . Ha bitat Conse rvation Per m it. Concurrent with or prior to an application for a grading permit, Developer shall apply for a Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Plan permit from the City of Gilroy. The grading permit w ill be issued only after payment of assessed fees and
approval of the Habitat Plan permit. (PL, PL -9)
~8 Habitat Conservation Fee Pay m ent . Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall present to the Community
Development Director or designee, a receipt issued by Santa Clara County for full payment of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan fees
for associated with the proposed development. Such receipt shall be dated within six (6) months of the grading permit issuance date,
or the fee amount may be rea ssessed and difference co llected at the time of grading permit issuance. (PL, PL-10)
19. Construction Noise. To minimize potentia l construction-related impacts to noise, Developer sha ll include the following
language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site (PL/BL, PL -11)
"During ea rth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer sha ll implement the following measures at the construction site:
{A) limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. Co nstruction noise is prohibited on Sund ays and City-obseived holidays;
(Bl locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or
are near a construction project area;
(C) Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site;
(D) Equip all internal co mbustion engine driven equipment with intake and ex haust mufflers that are in good condition and
approp riate for the equipment;
(E) Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
(F) Utilize "quiet'' models of air compressors and other stationary noise so urces where technology exists; and
(G) Designate a "disturbance coordinator' who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about constr uction
noise. The disturbance coordinator wJII determine the cause of the noise co mplaint (e.g . bad muffler, etc.) and will require that
reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem."
20. Air Quality. To minimize potential construction-related impacts to air quality, Developer shall include the following language on
any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site (PL/BL, PL-12):
"D uring earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer sha ll implement the follow ing basic control measures at the
construction site:
(A) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered
two times per day;
(Bl All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered;
(C) All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at
least once per day . The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
(D) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
(E) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as
soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
(F) Idling times shall be minimized ei ther by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to S
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage sha ll be provided for construction workers at all access points;
(G) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
(H) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints.
This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hou rs. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations ."
21. Archaeologica l Resources. In the event of an accidental discovery of archaeological resources during grading or construction
activities, Developer shall include the fo ll owing language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for t he project site
(BL/PL, PL-13):
"If archaeological or cultural resources are discove red during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities , all work shall be halted
within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologis t,
if one is onsite, shall be notified and eva luate the find. If a monitoring p rofessional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified
immediately and a qualified professiona l archaeologist sha ll be retained (at Developer's expense) to evaluate the find and report to the
Commented (js7]: There is no reason to stop our ability
to get a grading permit. Prevents the project from being
financed, imposes yet another time delay,
Commented (js8): The City needs to generate this
number for us to pay it.
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
City. lf the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist
and implemen ted by the responsible party."
22. Cultural Resources. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Developer shall include the
following language in all grading, site work, and construction plans (BL/PL, PL-14);
"If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area rea so nably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara
Co unty is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be
Native Ame r ica n the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage
Commission sha ll identify the person or persons it believes to be the most li kely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native
Ame ri can. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsibl e for the excavation work, for mean s
of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097 .98. The landowner or his authorized repres entative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated
grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native Ame rican
Heritage Commission is unable t o identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by
the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative
rejects the re commendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide
measures accep table to the landowner."
23. Equipment Screening. Prior to issuance of permits, Developer sha ll provide scree ning of all mechanical equipment, post
indicator valves, backflow prevention devices, etc. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers sha ll not be visible
from any public r igh t-of-way and shall be adequate ly screened through the use or co mbination of low concrete or maso nry walls,
berms, and landscaping . (PL , PL-17)
24. Any masonry or concrete wa lls used for sc reening purposes shall comply with front and street side yard height limits and be
setback from property lines o r back of sidewa lks at least 3-feet in order to accommodate landscaping along the exter ior fac ing
elevation. (PL-22)
25 . Backflow preventers sha ll be painted dark green, except the fire connection which shall be painted yellow. Interior lot lines may
be delineated by fencing, constructed of wood material. (Pl-17)
26. The fina l placement and design of the equipment and sc reen ing for the items in the above co nditions 23, 24 and 25, shall be to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee .
27. Homeowners Association. Developer sha ll establish a Homeowners' Assoc iation (HOA) for the development. The HOA sha ll be
responsible for the maintenance and enforcement of parking, private streets, commo n landscaping, rec reatio n and other interior areas
held in commo n by the HOA. Such responsibilities sha ll be provided within the CC&Rs for the development. (Pl, Pl-27)
28. Prior to reco rdation of the Final Map, the CC&R's shall be submitted to the City for review and approval to confirm the items
required in these conditions of approval have been satisfied; subject to review by the Community Deve lopment Director, City Engineer
and City Attorney.
PLANNING LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS
29~f-te-iss1:1aRee ef 81:1ileliR~ffig-f)efffiits,--Qevela~Gmft.....afl-arberist re13ert pre13are4-ey-a~rt+fie-el...aR9
lieeAseel ar8efis.t-tfla.t-ieeRtifies tAe e1cistiRg4ree5-te-be-save8, trees ta Be remeve4,aAG-FAi-tigatie~affiiRg,-wi#l
r-eeemmendatiens-ane-detail s-ef-the-af-OOFist-fer-suGR-Wer-k-shown-en-grading-plans-ane-implemented-d1:1Fing-grading.,-fP-b,--Pt-4Q.) WE
HAVE ALREA DY PROVID ED THI S see Neg Dec co nditions: (M M BI0 -4.1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the appl ica nt sha ll
subm it a fina l t ree replacement pla n to mitigat e for proposed tree remova ls consistent w ith Gil roy City Co de Art icle XXXV lll
(Landscapin g) and Consolidated landscape Po licy. The tree rep laceme nt pr ogram w ill be sub ject to review and approva l by the
Planni ng Manager and sha ll be implemented with constructio n of the subd ivision imp rove ments.
30. Prior to issuance gFae+Ag Qf_building permits for the project, Developer shall submit a landscape and Irrigation Plan for common
areas and the retaining walls and private open space behind lots 9 through 14, with completed Lands cape Documentation Package ,
including a so il analysis/management report along with appropriate application review fees, to the Community Development
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
De partment, includin g req uired documentatio n for co mpli ance ve rificat ion, and obta in approva l of such pl ans. Landsca ping plans sha ll
includ e det ail s for tree mit iga tio n and inc lud e plantin g t o along the common reta ini ng wa ll. (PL, PL-43)
31. As part of t he Lan dscape Pl an submittal, Deve loper shall not include any invasive plant species , such as those listed by the
Califo rn ia Invas ive Plant Cou ncil. (PL, PL-44)
32. As part of the La ndscape Plan submit tal, Deve lope r sha ll clarify a min imum t hree (3) inch laye r of mulc h to be ap plied o n all
exposed soi l su rfaces , as req uired by t he State MWELO. (P L, PL-45)
33 . Prior to issua nce of bui lding permits, Developer shall (as part of the irrigat ion sys t em ) include se nsors that suspe nd o r alter
irrigation operation during unfavo rable weather condit ions (e.g . automat ic ra in shut-off d evices). (PL, PL-42)
34. Pr io r to occupa ncy or an d/or fin al t ract accep t ance, Deve lope r shall submit a signed Certificate o f Completio n, along w ith all
necessary supporting docum entatio n and payment t o t he Com munity Developmen t Department , for co mpliance verifica t ion of t he
landscape insta llation . Developer shall complete insta ll ation of all landscaping and irr igation in accorda nce w ith the ap proved plans .
(PL-47, PL-48)
35. Developer is req u ired unde r MWE LO to provide a copy of t he ap p roved Certifi cate of Complet ion to the property owner o r his
o r her des lgnee. Prio r t o comp letion of eac h build-out ph ase of deve lopment, Deve lope r shall p rov id e t he Co m munity Development
Di rector o r designee a summary of each lot in t hat phase and t iming of compl iance with this requirement. (PL, Pl-49)
36 . For the life of the project , Developer and /or HOA ha ll maintain co m mon landscaping and irrigation im prove ments in accordance
w ith the approved pla ns, except as otherwise pe rm itted or required by law. Significant changes to t he number, place men t , and
selec tion of plant species may require a modification t o this app rova l, t o be determined by the Com mun ity Deve lopment Di rec t o r or
designee. (PL, PL-50 )
PLANNING DIVISION SPECIAL CONDITIONS
37. Off-site improvements. Developer sha ll comply with the requir ements of the Engi neering Division for all off-sit e rig ht of way
improve ments, w hich includes acquiring the right of way access to co n nect Gree nfield Drive with the project roadway .
~S. J:J~~~Fev+de a elistiRGti"e 13a.,emeRt treatmeRt te eleR'!aFEa-te-#te
traRsitieR frem 131:1Blie ts pri •ate rsa8 a,•, ts tRe satisfaetisR sf tAe PlaRRiRg MaR-ag~ty--EflgiReer. NEW CONDITION?
~9. 8wildiRg iR •e lepes fer Lets 1 aRd a, aRd bets Q tRrn 14 The fiAal ma13 sAaU-+Aeh,18e restrietieAs estaBl+s-hlflg-mtikHAg eA••elepes
~gRateEI EleHelepmeAt areas fGr Hie t,ue estate sii!:eel Let-+-aR8 bet 2 leeateel at tAe eAtry te tRe 8e"e lepmeAt aA~ets
(Lat 9, lG, 11, 12, 13, 11) teat a~at tee lJ as C,eel, ~-~~l~~-A5;-<>eligati&M-afl<l-li--...,I
m&-a~Ge-af.#ie-bYiWiAg-e,weiepes, •••RiG"1 shal~ll~e-e-sta~A8-ffiaiA-taiRee-fef-f)F&tevtieR-akigflifisaRt matblre trees
a~J-laA8sea13e ,egetatie~~i-lG+flg-etwelepe5. SEE DEED RESTR ICTION FOR LOTS 9 thru 14
40. Privat e Open Space Restrictions for Lots 9 thru 14. Th e area ex t ending from t he t op of the uppermost re t aining wa ll t o t he rea r
and side property li nes of Lot 9 through l ot 14, which back up t o the Uvas Creek preserve, sha ll be designa ted on t he fi nal map as
protected privat e open space . No structures, o rn amen t al landsca ping, private garden areas o r o t he r accessory structures, uses or
improve ments shall be permitted w ithin t he private open areas . Th e private open space sha ll be maintained w ith ap prove d landscap ing
and ope n view fe ncing o nly, which is co m plementary an d com patible w ith the adjace nt public open spac e vege t ation . Any
modification shall be subject to review and approva l of the Plann ing Manage r fo r compliance with th ese co nd itions and Gilroy City
Co de.
41. Private Open Space Vi ew Fencing Requirement for Lots 9 thru 14). The Deve loper shall insta ll open view fenc in g along the rea r
of bu ild ing enve lopes and along t he peri meter of t he private open space areas of Lots 9 thro ugh Lot 14. Intern al bo undary fenci ng shall
not be allowed between lots within t he pr ivate o pen space area, in order t o maintai n na tural landsca pe and access to t his area for
Com mented [js9]: We can accept this.
Comment ed [js 10]: The building envelopes are
determined by setbacks first, and why was this not even
menti on ed previ ously? There i s no reason for deed
restrictions on lots 1 or 2-We will agree to a deed
restriction on lots 9 through 14 that prevents building of
structures and addresses preservation of the trees. The area
cannot be maintained by the HOA , and the individual
owners will be able to access it for personal use. Dogs, etc_
Its highly possible we will eliminate most if not all of the
retaining walls -LATE CONOITION
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
maintenance. The open view fenci ng details shall be submitted for review and approva l by the Planning Division w ith grading permits
or improvement plans. Fencing shall be installed prior to occupancy of residences on these lots.
42. Private Open Space Enforcement. The homeowners association shall be responsible for enforcing limitations on use and
improvement within the designated private open space yard areas on lots 9 through 14. Th is sha ll include enforcing requirement for
maintenance of the trees and natural landscape vegetation required for this area, structural stability of the retaining walls, and fencing.
~,I n. •· n 9 1i&-ae<iess-easement:s--5hall-be-gr-anted-f-er--sidewalks-and-FOadwa-ys-through-t-he-deve lepment.-+he
8evela,:iR'leRt sRall Rat be peFmitteEI ta iRstall gates ta FestFiGt eRtry tRF01,1gR tRe Eleuela~ New Condition?
44. Common Improvements. Developer sha ll complete all required common landscaping, street t rees, lighting and tree mitigation
prior to issuance of building permits for lots within the development. A phasing schedule may be submitted for approva l by the
Planning Manager prior to issuance of grading permits. All improvements must be completed before the final building permit is issued
for the last lot and prior to acceptance of the Tract map .
Commented Us11]: We would need to apply to install a
gate under a separate permit anyway, the PUE accomplis hes
this, exposes the HOA to public trip and fall litigation, !ATE
CONDITION
~s! CemmaA RetalRing Wall Qesign Prier ta iss1,1aAee af gFaeliAJ:::Pe:FFAits, plaAs shall inelieate a mlAim1,1m 4'S" gFaele sepaFa~I -i Commented ijs12]: We can accept this
be maintained 9et..,een tl:te tiua sepai:ate ma1eimwm 5' tall FetaiAiAg "'all seGtiaAs that area ,:irepeseB ta 51:!ppaFt tRe fill eR lat:s 9 .
thFel:!gh 14. This area sRall be 13laAteel ,. itA laAelsea13iAg elesigned ta l3Fe,eAt elimBIRg and seften tRe ap13ear=aRee ef tl:1e-walh--Simil-af
laRelseapiAg sRat~1:1Eileel aleRg tRe base ef tRe walh FINAL MAP SHOWS THI S
~6t:::~~~~R'!!B~F~ee~s".:O~wt5~t!"•:":•~eli:":Rll-'l~P'!jP~li~sa~t1~··:":":!'P~ra~G~es~si_F,in~gi'fe~e~•i'fa!!r~Fe~·li_<•ie~u~, a"!f-tll~e-j>f8j~~--~~8-f'~Fejl~-~-!A-<>f-tll~~-~""~""'~Rm~eR":ll"'_al:,!I r:i:e•11:f•i~e''!." ----1 Commented [js13): Answer? Late condition
shalt-9e--Jniiel prief ta reeerelatieA ef tRe i=iRa~ New condition? Are there outstanding Fee's?
PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The following mitigation measures sha ll be incorporated as conditions of app roval, ons iste nt w ith the Mitigation Monitor ing and Reporting
Program prepa red and adopted for t he project.
47. (MM AIR-1.1) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project
would achieve a fleet-wide average of at least 30 percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve
this reduction would include the following:
(A) All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two
days shall meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equiva lent.
(B) Generator used to provide power sha ll meet, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter em issions standards for Tier 4
engines or equiva lent. Or their usage sha ll be limited to 100 hours total.
48. (MM 810-1.1) Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed prior to the start of construction activities, if
co nstruction activities are proposed to commence during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) in order to avoid impacts to
nesting birds . These surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days before construction begins during the
early part of the breeding season (February 1 through April 30) and no more than 30 days before construction begins during the latter
part of the breeding season (May 1 through August 31). During this survey, the biologist or ornithologist sha ll observe if any nesting
birds are within the project area.
Formatted: Font color: Red
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
49. (MM BI0-1.2) lf an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall designate an
adequate buffer zone to be established around the nest, in consu ltation w ith the Ca lifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife. The buffer
would ensure that nests shal l not be disturbed du rin g project construction.
50 . (MM BI0-1.3) The applicant sha ll submit a report indicating the results of the pre-construction survey and any designated buffer
zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Pla nning, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
51. (MM 810-2.1) Bat Pre-activity Survey. Prior to any removal of trees 12 inches o r greater in diameter at 4.5 feet above grade, a
pre-activity survey for roosting bats will be conducted within the Impact area . The survey will be conducted by a qualified bat
biologist . No activities that would result in disturbance of active bat roosts will proceed prior to the completed survey. If no active
roosts or maternity colonies are found, then no further action is warranted . If a large maternity colony or bat roost is presented, MM
BI0-3.2 or 3.3 shall be implemented.
52 . (MM 810-2.2) Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts, if an occupied bat roost is found in a tree that would be disturbed or
removed by proposed activities, the Project may be redesigned to avoid the disturbance of the tree. If the roost is unoccupied at the
time of the survey, the City may choose to install bat exclusion devices to prevent bats from taking up occupancy of the structure prior
to the onset of the proposed activity . lf avoidance is not feasible, MM BI0-3 .3 shall be implemented.
S3 . (MM BI0-2.3) Exclude Bats Prior to Distu r bance . If disturbance of an active non-breeding pallid bat roost cannot be avoided, the
individuals will be safely evicted between August 1 and October 15th or between February 15 and March 15. Bats may be evicted
th rough exclusion after notifying the California Department of Fish and W ildlife . Trees w ith roosts t ha t need to be removed will first be
disturbed at dusk, just prior to removal that evening, to allows bats to escape t he darker hours.
54 . (MM 810-3.1) Wood rat Pre.Constru ction Surveys . Pre -construction surveys for wood rat nests shall be conducted w ithin the
impact footprint by a qualified mammologist prior to the start of work. The surveys shall be conducted betwee n March 1st and
October 3 1st, when wood r ats are more ac t ive, and sha ll be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the start of work. Wood rat nests
detected during the survey shall be mapped and one o r more of the following measures shall be implemented:
(A) Disturbance-free Woodrat Buffers. Dusky-footed wood rats are year-round residents. Therefore, avoidance
mitigation is limited to redesigning the project to avoid direct impacts on woodrat nests to the extent feasib le . Id ea lly, a
minimum 10-foot buffer should be maintained between project cons truction activities and each nest to avoid
disturbance . In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the
nest w ould be a greater impact than the anticipated as a result of Project activities.
(Bl Relocation of Wood rat Nest Mater ia ls. If active wood rat nests are found within the Project boundary and avoidance Is
not feasib le, then the wood rats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of ground-
disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the wood rats. A qua lified biologist sha ll disturb the wood rat nest such
that all wood rats would seek refuge outside of the Project activity area. Subseq uently, t he nest sticks sha ll be removed
from the site, if feasible , these materials would be piled at the base of a nearby tree o r shrub. The spacing between
relocated nests shall not be less than 100 feet, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the habitat ca n support
higher densities of nests.
SS . (MM 810-4.1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the app li can t shall submit a final tree replacement plan to mitigate for
proposed tree removals consistent with Gilroy City Code Article XXXV III (l andscaping) and Consolidated Landscape Policy. Th e tree
I
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
replacement program will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Manager and shall be implemented with construction of
the subdivision improvements.
56. (MM BI0-4.2) The project wou ld also be required to implement tree preservation measures before and during project
construction for significant trees to be retained. These measures sha ll be included on all plans . Tree protection measures include:
Design Recommendations .
(A) The trees identified for preservation shall be established and plotted on all plans (including but not limited to
demolition, improvement, utility, drainage, grading, landscape and irrigation plans), subject to review and comment by
the Consulting Arborist.
(B) Changes to plans shall be subject to review and comment by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts.
(C) A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around each tree to be preserved . Specific TPZ zones are specifically
required for the following trees located within the area of development·
Tree No. TPZ
ttB
tt19
tt31
tt36, 37, 38
5' North. Dripline in all other
directions.
5' North and West. Dripline in all
other directions.
5' South. Dripline in all other
directions .
10' West. Dripline in all other
directions.
(D) TPZ's for trees not listed above shall be estab lished at the dripline or a 10-foot radius, whichever is greater.
(El Underground services and utilities, including subd rains , water and sewer, shall be routed around the TPZ. Where
encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be
employed where necessary to minimize root injury.
(f) All temporary access roads and staging for materials, equipment, etc., shall remain outside ofTPZ's.
(G) Herbicides must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
(H) Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TPZ .
Pre-construction Treatments
(I) Per the City's Consolidated Landscape Po licy, policies 6.2 and 6.3, the developer shall hire a certified consu lting
arborist for the entire span of the project. All arborist recommendations shall be drafted on the final construction,
grading, or landscape plans.
(J) The consulting arbor ist shall sig n the final landscape plans authorizing this plan is consistent with the
recommendations made in the arborist report.
(Kl The construction superintendent shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work
procedures and tree protection.
(L) fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree Protection Zone prior to demolition, grubbing or
grading. Fences sha ll be 61 high cha in link, mounted to stee l posts firmly driven into the ground or on sta nchions fastened
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
securely with rebar staples 12" deep, as required by the City. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is
completed.
(M) Trees recommended for preservation ma y require clearance pruning for construction. All pruning shall be
completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 sta ndards as
well as the Best Management Practices -Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arbor icu lture.
(N) Structures and underground features to be removed within the Tree Protection Zone shall use the smallest
equipment, and operate from outside the Tree Protection Zone. The consultant sha ll be o n-site during all operations
within the Tree Protect ion Zone to monitor demolition activity.
(0) Apply and maintain 4-6" wood chip mulch within the Tree Protection Zone.
(P) All tree wor k sha ll co m ply with the Migratory Bird Trea ty Act as we ll as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to
not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be sched uled outside of the breeding
seaso n. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be in vo lved in
establishing work buffers for active nests.
During Construction
(Q) Prior t o beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the
Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
(RJ No grading, construction, demolition o r other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications
must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
(SJ Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and
monitored by the Co nsulting Arborist. Roots sha ll
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
,,.
-Figure 13-6
Vacant and
Underutilized Parcels
~~-Rail
C ...... J City Limits
C:::J Planning Area/Sphere of Influe nce
Vacant Sites by General Plan Designation
1111 High Density Residential
~ Low Density Residential
Rural Residential
CJ Hillside Residential
0 025 0.5 Miles --c=:=:iiil,a--111
Source: City of Gilroy (2013), San ta Clara Co unty GI$ (2013)
Map Dale: 12/4/2013
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
CHAPTER 13: HOUSING ELEMENT 13
TABLE 13-55
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS 2014-2022 PLANNING PERIOD
City of Gilroy
2014
Map General Plan Permitted Projected Income
ID APN Acres Designation Zoning Density Units Category I Notes
A 81 023005 37.5 Rura l Residential A-1 1 du per lot 1 Above Moderate
B 78347003 88.0 Hills ide Reside ntial RH 0.5-1 du/ac 40 Above Moderate
C I 7832 0048 Low Density Residential R-1 3-7.25 du/ac Above Moderate I Potentia l for lot co nso lidation
78320049 3 .9 11
D I so8woo8 8.6 Low Density Residential RJ. 3-7 .25 du/ac 25 Above Moderate
E I 80839066 6.4 Low Density res idential R-1 3-7 .25 du/ac 18 Above Moderate
81023 00 1 0.3 2
81028025 0.3 1
8 1028026 0.4 1
81028027 0.4 1
81028028 0.5 1
81028029 0.6 1
81028030 1.2 1
I 81028031
Low Density Residential R-1 3-7 .25 d u/ac I Above Moderate
F 0.4 1
81028032 0 .5 1
81028033 0 .5 1
81028034 0.5 1
81 028035 0 .6 1
81028036 0 .6 1
81028037 0 .5 1
Subtotal 7.3 15
Underutilized site rezoned in 2012 to implement 2007-2 0 14
Ll-1 I 79014025 I I I I Housing Element. Old bu ildi ng remodeled ; Majority of lot
used for storage of granite slabs; Owner has expressed
2.1 Hig h De nsity Residential R-4 20-30 du/ac 36 Very Low/Low interest in re d eve lo pment
Background Report Page 13-77
Adopted December 1, 20 14
8.A.u
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Letter from The James Group (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential
Greenfield Dr 14 Lot Homes (TM 16-02)
Safe Routes to School Summary
Las Animas Elementary- .07 miles away and accessed by walking/biking down Greenfield Dr to
Las Animas.
Ascencion Solorsano Middle School- 2.1 miles away accessed in the rear of the project using
the bike/ped path that connects to Riverview Creek, left on Riverview Creek, left onto bike/ped
path that crosses over Uvas Creek and ends at Luchessa Bridge, cross over Luchessa Bridge, and
then connect to the Levee trail to Miller Ave, left on Miller Ave, right onto the bike/ped trail,
which connects to the middle school
Gilroy High School- 1.67 miles away accessed in the rear of the project using the bike/ped path
that connects to Riverview Creek, left on Riverview Creek, left onto bike/ped path that crosses
over Uvas Creek and ends at Luchessa Bridge, cross over Luchessa Bridge, and then connect to
the Levee trail to the backside of Gilroy High School.
Crossing over Luchessa bridge by bike/ped requires use of the shoulder on the left (north) side
of bridge which has upright reflectors on it to provide a warning to approaching vehicles, but no
protection. We suggest bike riders walk their bikes in this area to cross over Luchessa Bridge to
the Levee trail. Luchessa Bridge is increasingly being used as the main route for vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians as developments in the area grow. It will continue to be a point of
conflict.
Zachary Hilton
Chair, Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Zachary.Hilton@cityofgilroy.org
#GilroyBPAC
8.A.v
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: SRTS Greenfield Dr 14 Lot Homes (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Tentative Map Request to Subdivide a 8.36 Acre Site into 14
Single-family Residential Lots Ranging From 6,660 Square Feet to
21,890 Square Feet, With Two Common Parcels and Dedication of
3.7 Acres to the Uvas Creek Park Preserve, on a Property Located
Between the Northern End of Greenfield Drive and Uvas Creek,
APN 808-20-008, The James Group c/o James Suner, Applicant
Meeting Date: October 15, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Kraig Tambornini
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting a mitigated
negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approving
Tentative Map TM 16-02 creating 14 single-family residential lots, two common parcels
and one public park parcel located at the northerly terminus of Greenfield Drive and
south of Uvas Creek; APN 808-20-008, filed by James Suner.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Greenfield 14-lot residential subdivision project is located on an 8.66 acre
infill parcel between the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area and Villagio
neighborhoods. The project includes dedication of 3.7 acres of land to Uvas Creek Park
Preserve with the remaining 4.66 acres developed at 3 units per acre.
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
The project orients lots backing onto the Uvas Creek Park Preserve, which conflicts with
design criteria contained within both the 1992 Uvas Creek Park Preserve Plan and the
Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (2002). Additional concerns were raised
regarding the design of the private road, site grading, and drainage. After several
meetings and revisions a majority of technical issues were substantially resolved.
However, the applicant requested a decision be made on the project with lots backing
onto open space as shown on revised plans submitted on March 15, 2018. Therefore,
on June 7, 2018 the project was forwarded to the Planning Commission with a
recommendation for denial.
After hearing testimony on the project from staff, the applicant and public, the Planning
Commission ultimately voted unanimously (6-0, 1 absence) to recommend approval of
the subdivision. The Planning commission concluded that the lot layout was consistent
with residential lots in Glen Loma Ranch and that fencing and retaining wall deta ils
would sufficiently address security concerns. Based on the action of the Planning
Commission, staff completed environmental review for the project that incorporated
additional information and project revisions agreed to by the applicant.
POLICY DISCUSSION
The City Council is asked to consider whether the proposed 14-lot subdivision design
and improvements are appropriate for this site, including; a) the project net density of 3
units per acre, b) the private roadway design and 36’ wide pavement width, c) the
required acquisition of right of way from Glen Loma to extend Greenfield Drive, d) the
proposed open space dedication, e) the lot pattern, and f) the orientation of homes
backing onto the Uvas Creek Park Preserve open space.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Action: On June 7, 2018, at the applicant’s request, the project
was submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing and action , with a
recommendation for denial based on the fact the project had not addressed specific
development concerns identified by staff as necessary to comply with City plans and
policies. Specific reasons cited for denial included the following:
(1) The proposed map does not meet the minimum 3-7.25 unit per acre density for the
Low Density Residential General Plan designation.
(2) The proposed map removes mature trees in a riparian area, impacting Uvas Creek
riparian corridor and demonstrating inconsistency with General Plan Policy 1.1 .
(3) The proposed map would allow urban encroachment immediately adjacent to the
Uvas Creek riparian corridor which could impact the ecological, aesthetic, and
recreational value of the creek. This demonstrates inconsistency with General Plan
Policy 20.02.
(4) The design creates safety and security concerns due to concealed access to the
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
rear of the lots and lack of public visibility into the open space areas and users of
the trail.
Based on the staff recommendation for denial of the project the draft environmental
review document was not completed prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
However, after receiving testimony on the project, the Planning Commission passed a
motion 6-0 (member Rodriquez absent) to recommend approval of the subdivision
design, as proposed, with lots oriented with rear yards onto Uvas Creek Park Preserve
open space corridor. In support of this motion, the Planning Commission identified that
the development in Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area to the west included four
homes that had rear yards adjacent to the open space. Further, the applicant provided a
survey which showed the net project density would be 3 units per acre. Lastly, the
Commission concluded safety and security concerns would be addressed by proposed
retaining walls and rear yard fencing, and with visibility into open space from residential
rear yards.
It is worthy of noting that the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan requires a considerable
amount of open space as a part of the development (24% of 88 acres). Glen Loma
includes frontage roads along the open space facing Uvas Creek Preserve. The f our
lots mentioned do not have any direct views of the open space lands.
Project Description: The Tentative Map Application (TM 16-02) requests approval to
develop 8.56 total acres into 14 single-family residential lots, two common parcels within
the development, and one parcel dedicated for trails and passive open space along
Uvas Creek. A homeowners association (HOA) would be required for maintenance of
the common improvements, which include the roadway, drainage detention areas,
retaining walls and the grade separated private lot areas between the retaining and
property lines along the Uvas Creek preserve.
The total project area includes the 8.36 acre project site area plus 0.2 acres of private
open space property (off-site) that is required for right-of-way access from Greenfield
Drive. The developer would be required to acquire the additional right-of-way and
incorporate this into the development. Net density calculations have been updated
based on the survey provided at the Planning Commission meeting.
Development Area, Lot Sizes and Common Parcels: The average proposed residential
lot size is 10,578 square feet (sf); ranging from 6,660sf to 21,890sf in size. The
residential lots and related subdivision improvements would be within 4.66 acres of the
site area. The remaining 3.7 acres are offered for dedication to the City as Parcel A,
along Uvas Creek to the north (the location and details are on Plan Sheets 1, 3 and 4,
and 6).
With the exception of Lots 1 and 2, a large quantity of fill material would be required in
order to raise the elevation of the 4.66 acres to be developed (approximately 18,000
cubic yards of fill). Assuming a standard of 10-14 yards of fill per truckload, this would
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
require from 1,285 to 1,800 truck trips to the site. The proposed subdivision elevation
would be similar to the Villagio neighborhood immediately to the east.
With the proposed fill, the private road (Greenfield Circle) would be designed with a
grade that would not exceed 15-percent; the maximum allowed by City standards. The
resulting lots would be relatively level, with the exception of Lot 3 and Lot 4 that
downslope from the road. The subdivision would direct residential stormwater into
detention areas proposed behind Lots 1 and 2, and within landscape strips along the
roadway.
Drainage for low lying lands including the bicycle path would be addressed with final
improvement plans. Stormwater drainage systems would not be installed within the
creek corridor, and would generally be designed to sheetflow to a natural condition.
The general lot characteristics are further described as follows:
Lot 1 and Lot 2: These are two large “estate” sized parcels just under one -half
acre each (19,503sf and 21,890sf respectively). These lots are at the entry to the
subdivision and on the existing oak wooded knoll at the current terminus of
Greenfield Drive. These lots propose building envelopes that are more restrictive
than the standard R1 zoning setbacks. Deed restrictions would be required to
establish the limited building areas, and restriction on building outside of
envelopes (no-build); to establish preservation obligations of the existing mature
oak trees on these parcels. See Plan Sheet 2 for details.
Lot 3 through Lot 8: These six lots are in the center of the development an d
propose more traditional R-1 6000 square foot sizes; from 6,660sf to 8,599sf. Lot
dimensions are generally 70 feet minimum width and 95 feet minimum depth.
The standard R1 setbacks are shown as building envelopes on the lots. Most lots
have level building pads, with the exception of Lot 3 which would have a
downslope of roughly 12-percent and Lot 4 which would have a cross slope of
approximately 8-percent. See Plan Sheet 2 and 3 for more details.
Lot 9 through Lot 14: These six lots back up to the proposed public Parcel A-
Uvas Creek Park Preserve extension (see Plan Sheet 3 for lot details). Building
pads would and supported by retaining walls, consisting of two 5’ tall sections
with a 4.5’ grade separation indicated (5’ required as a condition of approval) to
allow for planting and compliance with City standards for height of walls/fences.
This has reduced fill and tree removal downslope of the lots . The lots would
range in size from 8,858 sf to 13,125 sf. No development or improvements
beyond the retaining walls are anticipated. The property boundary would extend
15’ to 80’ beyond the retaining wall. As conditioned, this area and the retaining
walls would be subject to maintenance by the HOA.
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Plan Sheet 3 shows that residential parcel lines would extend up to an SCVWD
Easement line. The lots and associated improvements would be setback more than 150
feet from the established top of creek bank. This setback area encompasses a minimum
required 100 foot riparian setback from top of creek bank and minimum 35 foot setback
from associated riparian woodlands; which satisfies Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan1 and General Plan Action 20.B. The project plans and biological
constraints report (ISMND Appendix B-2, Figure 2) identify that the project meets with
applicable setback standards.
Common Parcels B and C would include the private streets and stormwater
management improvements, totaling 0.34 acres. The 3.7 acre open space Parcel A
would be part of Uvas Creek Park Preserve. The project would construct a 12’ regional
bike path within Parcel A, and connect the site to the existing paved trail connection into
the Villagio residential development. These improvements add approximately 530 feet
of dedicated bike paths consistent with the Bikeway element of the City’s adopted
Transportation Master Plan.
The project proposes private local streets with a minimum 36’ pavement width; to
accommodate unrestricted parking on both sides of the road and 22-foot clear access
for emergency vehicles. Landscape planter strips and 6’ wide sidewalks would be
located within proposed 10’ to 16’ wide public utility easements on both sides of the
street. Stormwater detention is proposed behind Lots 1 and 2 and within landscape
planter strips along the roadway. All improvements wo uld be owned and maintained by
a homeowners association. Thus, the City would not maintain the improvements nor
conduct traffic enforcement within the development.
Development Timing: The subdivision improvement would be completed in a single
phase. The project does not include a plan for construction of individual homes. It is
anticipated that a separate architectural and site review request may be made by a
single home builder. However, lots could be sold to individual owners. In any event, the
landscaping and tree planting required for the subdivision, including tree mitigation,
street trees and planting for the double retaining walls, would be required to be
completed prior to acceptance of the subdivision. These improvements would likely be
implemented as the lots are built out. Conditions of approval are recommended to
establish timing for completion of subdivision improvements. The homeowners
association would be responsible for ongoing maintenance of common improvements.
Location and Owner Information: The project site is located north and east of Las
Animas Elementary School at the northern terminus of Greenfield Drive, and
immediately south of Uvas Creek, APN: 808-20-008. City open space, Cydney Casper
Park and Las Animas School lie immediately adjacent on the western site boundary.
The Applicant is James Suner, The James Group, 7600 Monterey Street, Suite 130,
Gilroy, CA 95020. The Owner is Assembly of God of Gilroy, Inc., a Ca
1 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Page 6-52, August 2012; Creek Setback Inside the Urban Service Area
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
corporation/Malcolm McPhail, Lead Pastor for New Hope Church, 8886 Muraoka Drive,
Gilroy, CA 959020.
In addition, the project requires acquisition of 0.2 acres of property for road right of way
needed to access the site. This land is within the Glen Loma Ranch open space and
adjacent to Cydney Casper Park.
Residential Dwelling Ordinance Allocations: Before new residential development
applications can be processed, residential dwelling unit allocations are required to be
obtained; pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.60 - Residential Development
Ordinance (RDO). The RDO allocation process has currently been suspended, pending
completion of the new City General Plan, currently anticipated in 2020. Existing
applications that received allocations prior to October 3, 2017 and deemed complete
prior to November 6, 2017 can continue to be processed. This application TM16-02 was
granted RDO “Interim Exemption” unit allocations during the April 2016-April 2017
period and the project was accepted as complete on July 12, 2017 . Therefore, the
project can continue through the entitlement process. The process for granting “Interim
Exemption” allocations differed from the 2006 process, in that projects were not
required to compete for the more recent allocations.
Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is presently
undeveloped. The site slopes down to the north, towards Uvas Creek with mixed
woodland riparian vegetation. The property and surrounding land uses are as follows:
LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site Vacant Low Density Residential R1
North Uvas Creek Park and Recreation
Facility PF
South Single Family Residential Low Density Residential
(Villagio Estates) R1
East Single Family Residential Low Density Residential
(Villagio Estates) R1
West
Cydney Casper Park/Glen
Loma Ranch Specific Plan
Open Space
Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan ND
Application History: On November 2, 2006, the City Council approved an RDO Small
Project Exemption SPE-06-04 for a clustered 14-lot residential project on the site2. This
exemption was granted based upon significant open space dedication that qualified the
project for the small project exemption. Lots were also oriented along a frontage road
facing the Uvas Creek Park Preserve. This concept would have also required a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) combining district application for clustering with small lots (less
than 6,660 sf).
2 City Council Resolution 2006-75
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
On March 30, 2007, Tentative Map application TM 07-02 was filed for 14 residential
lots. However, the formal application did not propose a PUD and had lots backing onto
Uvas Creek. The application was deemed incomplete and ultimately deemed withdrawn
on September 3, 2009.
On May 17, 2016, the current application Tentative Map TM 16-02 was filed and RDO
“Interim Exemption” unit allocations were granted to facilitate processing of the request.
The project continued to propose lots backing onto the creek. Staff worked with the
applicant to address several technical and design issues, and encouraged redesign to
orient lots toward Uvas Creek. Some progress was made to reduce grading an d tree
removal, and improve riparian habitat protection. However, the applicant ultimately
requested a decision on the proposal with lots backing onto open space.
On June 7, 2018, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed
staff’s recommendation for denial of the project, heard testimony from the staff, the
applicant and general public, and voted unanimously (6 -0, 1 absence) to recommended
approval of the project to the City Council.
Environmental Assessment: On July 27, 2018, the City released a draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) completed in compliance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND has been prepared based on
the most recent plans dated March 15, 2018, with updated informat ion prepared to
reflect design changes. The revised project includes details for the retaining walls
proposed within lots 9-14; which eliminate approximately 800 cubic yards of fill and
reduces tree removal from 41 trees down to 28 trees (as discussed on page 38 of the
MND). MND figure 4.4-1 also shows the general location of significant mixed oak
woodlands on the site. The retaining walls include a mid-grade separation that reduces
height of walls and fencing to meet an established height threshold of seve n feet; thus
there would be double 5’ tall walls with 6’-7’ open wire fences behind lots 9-14. The
applicant also agreed to install brambly landscaping in this area to soften the
appearance and discourage climbing.
Mitigation measures address construction-related air quality impacts and biological
impacts. Pre-construction surveys would be required to assure trees and animal species
would be protected. The mitigation measures are reflected in a mitigation monitoring
and reporting program (MMRP) prepared for the development. Mitigation measures are
also incorporated into the project conditions of approval. The applicant signed the
agreement to accept the mitigation measures.
The draft MND was distributed for a 30-day public review to interested and responsible
agencies, submitted to the State of California Clearinghouse and Office of Planning and
Research, posted on the City website and notice was provided in the Mercury News and
posted at the County Clerk’s office. The public review period for the MND ended A ugust
27, 2018. One comment was received from the Santa Clara Valley Water District
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
(SCVWD). SCVWD maintains an easement across the property for water management
and storm drainage purposes. The comments request the following:
1) Additional information incorporated into the record to substantiate the Uvas
Creek stream classification of Category 2,
2) Inclusion of potential wetland area on additional figures, and
3) Further information regarding drainage runoff toward the creek post construction.
A response to comments has been provided in the Final MND and confirms Uvas Creek
impacts are adequately assessed consistent with adopted master plans. Specifically,
the project provides the appropriate setbacks from both the creek bank and riparian
vegetation. In most cases the 150 foot creek setback is provided from development;
which includes a minimum 100 foot creek and 35 foot riparian woodland habitat
setback.
Further, a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Permit (HCP) also would be
required prior to development, as a standard requirement. The City is authorized to
issue this permit to confirm development impacts on riparian areas would comply with
the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation plan, and state regulations. The HCP
permit must be obtained by the applicant prior to construction of improvements and
ensures project compliance with local, federal and state regulations established for the
protection of wildlife and habitat in the plan area, including Uvas Creek.
Final grading and tree removal plans would be required to be submitted prior to
development, that matches the proposal in MND figure 4.4 -1 and Plan Sheet 3. The
conceptual wall detail would also be required as part of the final grading plan
improvement details. Lastly, tree replanting and landscaping details would be required
to be implemented during construction and prior to acceptance of the subdivision.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency: The City of Gilroy General Plan designates the site for
Low Density Residential uses which supports single-family residential development at a
density of 3 to 7.25 units per acre. In general, development should meet the minimum
established density range, considering applicable site constraints. With exclusion of the
public open space Parcel A the project would achieve a net density of 3 units per acre.
Exclusion of Parcel A is appropriate in this case based on the desire of the City to
extend Uvas Creek Park Preserve and preserve creek and riparian areas. An increased
density could be achieved through PUD rezoning and lot clustering, if desired by the
owner. However, the net density facilitates development consistent with the standard R1
zoning.
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Key General Plan strategies, goals and policies that apply to the project have been
identified and discussed in the attached General Plan Consistency table. In summary,
The table notes areas of potential inconsistency with Policy 1.01 (Pattern of
Development), Policy 1.05 (Existing Neighborhoods), Policy 1.09 (Clustering
Development), Policy 16.04 (Parks and Recreation Master Plan), and Policy 20.02
(Open Space and Habitat Areas, Creek Protection). The potential inconsistencies
primarily relate to the orientation of lots backing up to Uvas Creek Park Preserve open
space. Staff has maintained that homes should be oriented along a frontage road facing
the open space in order to comply with the General Plan and associated master plan
documents (1992 Uvas Creek Park Preserve Master Plan, Parks & Recreation System
Master Plan approved by City Council June 13, 2002 and updated September 2004,
and City of Gilroy Trails Master plan approved May 2, 2005).
The Planning Commission concluded that the subdivision design, as proposed,
substantially met the City’s goals and policies for R1 residential development. The City
must review and interpret all of its General Plan policies collectively. Potentia l conflicts
between competing policies may be resolved based on a determination that the
development project, on balance, results in the maximum advancement of the goals and
policies of the General Plan. For example, broader policies may over -ride objectives of
a narrow, more specific resource protection policy. In this case, facilitating R1
residential development within the desired density range is a primary goal of the
General Plan. Potential safety and land use design conflicts are more specific merits
issue requiring detailed evaluation on a case by case basis.
Zoning Code Consistency: The project site is zoned R1 Single-Family Residential.
The following table illustrates the level of project compliance with the minimum R1
district zoning standards pursuant to Gilroy City Code (GCC) Article V:
R1 ZONE STANDARD COMPLIANCE STATUS
Average Density – 3 to
7.25 units per acre
(GCC 30.5.10)
3 units per acre net density proposed based on 4.66
developable site area and 3.7 acer open space dedication.
Permitted Uses –
Primarily for single
family residential
(GCC 30.5.20)
14 proposed single family residential lots proposed.
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Site and Building
Requirements shall
comply with table
30.11.20
(GCC 30.5.30)
The 6,660 square foot min. lot size and suitable buildable areas
are provided within required yard areas; 22’ from front curb, 21’
from side curb, 6’ interior side & 15’ rear. However, Lots 1, 2, &
9-14 require building envelopes to establish tree and private
open space protections. Regardless, no exceptions are
proposed that would necessitate a Planned Unit Overlay
Combining District (PUD).
Density – 1 unit per lot
(GCC 30.5.40)
Only 1 residence per lot is proposed; which could include an
accessory dwelling unit as part of a future residence.
Site design
requirements
(GCC30.5.50)
No residences are proposed at this time. Architectural and site
review may be required if four or more lots are developed by a
single builder; pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section
30.50.41(a)(5).
Fences and Retaining
Walls (GCC30.34.30)
Rear yard fences may be 7 feet maximum; except when a
fence is placed on a retaining wall within five feet of a property
line then the wall shall be three feet, no additiona l wall shall be
built within 5 feet, and any additional wall shall be 6 feet max.
The project as proposed and conditioned includes two five-foot
walls, with a 5’ grade separation and open wire fencing to
comply with the intent of this standard and related design
policies.
Subdivision and Land Development Code Consistency: Pursuant to Gilroy City
Code (GCC) Chapter 21.41 the Planning Commission shall recommend tentative maps
to the City Council. In this case, a decision by the City Council would be required within
30 days following adoption of the MND3.The City Council may approve the map or refer
it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, study or revision. Initial
approval of a tentative map is valid for twenty-four (24) months, and allows up to three
12-month extensions. The City subdivision regulations relevant to this request are
discussed as follows:
3 Reference State Government Code Section 66452
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS?
Minimum Lot
Size (GCC
30.11; 21.95)
6,660 SF (for R1 lots using
street standards adopted in
February 2006); with
minimum 40 foot frontage
6,660 SF – 21,890 SF Yes
Local Streets
(GCC 21.10;
21.19; 21.23)
For 24 units or less: 52’
right of way, including five-
foot wide tree planting
easement, and 38’
roadway, except in
mountainous or hillside
areas where width may be
reduced to meet site
conditions; constructed to
City standards and not
exceeding 15-percent grade
Private 36’ right of way,
including two 11’ travel
lanes, two 7’ parking
lanes, plus 10’ to 16’
public use easements
(PUE) for 6’ sidewalks
and planting strips
along the roadway;
otherwise constructed
to City standards; not
exceeding 15-percent
grade.
Yes, with conditions.
Though the roadway
width is below the
GCC standard, this
may be permitted
and complies with
adopted Engineering
Standards and
Specifications. See
further TAC
discussion below.
Street Lights
(GCC 21.33)
Standard street lights shall
be installed
Required as a condition Yes, with conditions
Street Tree
Planting
(GCC 21.34)
As required by the City
(Chapter 30.38 and
Landscape Policy)
Required as a condition Yes, with conditions.
This will require
minor adjustment to
storm water
treatment in planter
strips.
Utility
Undergrounding
(GCC 21.111;
21.114)
Required Required as condition Yes, with conditions
Impact Fees -
Traffic, Library,
Public Facilities
(police, fire,
parks)
(GCC 21.124;
21.126, 21.152,
21.160)
Required Required as a condition Yes, with conditions
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section 21.41(a),
the Tentative Map was distributed for consideration by various departments and utility
agencies. Project plans were routed to Engineering, Building, Police, and Fire
representatives for internal review and comment. External agencies were included in
this review and referral, including the water district (SCVWD) and school district
(GUSD). The TAC considered the project six separate times, most recently March 21,
2017 and March 16, 2018.
The project has provided sufficient information on grading, drainage and tree removal.
The proposal has been revised to include retaining walls that would limit fill and tree
removal behind lots 9 through 14. Remaining TAC concerns include the following:
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Police, Planning and Parks safety, security and riparian protection concerns as a
result of concealed access to the rear of residences on lots 9 through 14 which
are designed to back onto Uvas Creek corridor.
Engineering concerns regarding drainage into the Uvas Creek corridor from lots
9 through 14.
In addition, private streets are proposed for the subdivision and a Homeowners’
Association would be created to maintain the streets. The adopted Engineering
Standards and Specifications allow for a 36 foot wide typical road pavement with 10’
public utility easements along both sides of the roadway. This standard provides for
unrestricted parking on both sides of the street. Plan sheet 7 demonstrates turning
movement for emergency vehicle access would be attained. It is further recommended
gated access to the development should be prohibited in this location, in order to
maintain an integrated neighborhood community in this area. Draft restrictions (CC&R’s)
would also be required, and should disclose that the utilities and roads are private thus
not subject to City enforcement or maintenance.
Remaining technical concerns can be addressed with conditions. The relationship of
development to Uvas Creek requires a policy decision by the City Council. The Uvas
Creek Park Preserve design criteria have been provided or further discussion below.
Conditions have been developed to support the project as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD): Project plans were routed to the GUSD for
review and comments. Development falls within the following school boundaries: Las
Animas Elementary School, Ascencion Solorsano Middle School, and Gilroy High
School. The GUSD Assistant Superintendent has been contacted, and confirmed, that
the additional 14 units would be within planned capacities for these schools.
Uvas Creek Park Preserve Extension:
The Parks master plan anticipates public or private ownership of lands included in the
Uvas Creek Park Preserve. While preservation of these lands is strongly encouraged,
staff does not recommend dedication of the land as part of the City’s Parks and
Recreation System, due to long-term management and liability issues. Participation in
the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, and dedication of these open space
lands to the Authority or other public agencies, could be further explored as a means of
ensuring long term preservation and management of non -recreational open space. Staff
public access easements shall be provided for Parcel A and ownership and
maintenance remaining responsibility of the HOA.
Creek, Trail and Parks Master Plans:
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
As noted in the background and general plan discussion, the 1992 Uvas Creek Park
Preserve plan page 48 contains the following design criteria for future development
along the creek:
Provide vehicular circulation systems that are sensitive to the creek
environment.
Provide pedestrian and bicycle access and connections to the creek trail
system.
Limit backyard and sideyard fencing where possible, to provide the
maximum amount of access to the creek frontage.
Provide a minimum 25 feet of landscape buffers and setbacks.
The 2002 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan contains similar criteria to promote
access, protection and visibility into these amenities, in Chapter 9, page 120 which
states:
Park Property Boundaries - Acquisition and development of public park
lands abutting residential property is strongly discouraged, due to historic
conflicts. This includes back yard and side yard residential property lines.
Whenever possible, a roadway or other non-park feature shall separate the
park and the residential property line.
The project satisfies criteria for vehicle and bicycle access. The 25 foot setback is not
specifically established on the plans. However, the intent could be satisfied with the
recommended conditions of approval that would require downslope areas of Lots 9
through 14 to be preserved as private open space. It is also appropriate to note that
recent state mandates require that the City must use objective criteria and standards
when reviewing residential development projects, if a decision is being made to reduce
project densities. In this case, the applicant and the City have agreed that three (3) units
per acre net density would be acceptable, given the site constraints and open space
dedication.
Staff has consistently recommended a redesign to orient lots facing onto the Uvas
Creek preserve; if this can be accomplished without further reducing density or violating
the R1 6,600 minimum lot size requirement. It appears feasible for the project to meet
the design criteria without reducing density or conflicting with City standards. However,
to date a revised alternative concept has not been proposed or presented by the
applicant for review. The Planning Commission did not request this additional analysis
before recommending the project.
The following information is provided for purposes of comparing the project creek
setbacks with surrounding development:
Project Creek & Riparian Setback Comments
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
Project Creek & Riparian Setback Comments
Glen Loma Ranch 100 foot setback from creek
bank; 30 to 50 foot setback from
riparian vegetation
This development is immediately
adjacent west of the project. Four
lots back up to dense vegetation
within the open space creek corridor;
near the terminus of Tenth Street.
Villagio 50 foot setback from top of bank
or edge of riparian vegetation,
whichever was greater
This development is immediately
adjacent east of the project. All lots
along the creek corridor face onto a
frontage road and adjoining the trail.
Hecker Pass 100 foot setback from outer edge
of riparian habitat
This development is at the easterly
edge of the City.
The table shows that creek and riparian setbacks would be comparable with adjacent
development, and other locations along the creek channel. However, the orientation of
lots adjacent to the public trails remains in conflict with the park plans criteria.
SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS:
The following Subdivision Map Act criteria must be considered when taking action to
approve or deny a tentative map request:
1) The tentative map must be denied if the only practical use which can be made of the
property as proposed to be developed is a use prohibited by this Code, statute, law
or other valid regulation, or if the land is subject to severe flood hazard or severe
inundation.
Analysis: The project proposes single family residential land use which complies with
the R1 residential zoning, and development is located upland of the flood plain.
2) No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative
map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the objectives, policies, land uses, and programs of the general, or
any adopted specific plan.
Analysis: The development would not be within a specific plan area; with the exception
of a small right of way extension at the entry to the site . The Planning Commission has
recommended that the project substantially complies with all applicable General Plan
goals, policies, and implementation actions including the site density and design
requirements. Based on the recommendation provided by the Planning Commission, an
analysis of the General Plan demonstrates that the project could be deemed to
substantially comply with the applicable General Plan Chapters as follows:
a) The subdivision would address the Strategic Direction Chapter in that it would
result in infill residential development that matches existing single-family development in
the area, with a variety of housing near parks and schools, and protection of natural
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
resources.
b) The subdivision design would be substantially consistent with Community
Design Chapter given that the development pattern avoids encroachment into open
space areas and provides a net density of 3 units per acre (within the remaining
buildable areas of the site after dedication of 3.7 acres of land for public open space).
Although clustering of development would result in greater conformance with the
General Plan, this would not be required to achieve greater densities. Lower densities
may be allowed where environmental constraints exist. The potential inconsistencies
with Policy 1.01 (Pattern of Development), Policy 1.05 (Existing Neighborhoods), Policy
1.09 (Clustering Development), Policy 16.04 (Parks and Recreation Master Plan), and
Policy 20.02 (Open Space and Habitat Areas, Creek Protection), resulting from
orientation of lots 9-14 backing to open space, could be considered resolved if the City
Council concludes that, on balance, the broader objective to provide residential in -fill
development at minimum densities overrides the more narrow focus of these policies.
c) The project would be substantially consistent with the Public Facilities and
Services chapter policies 16.02, 16.04, 16.05, 16.12, and 16.14 as the development
provides 3.7 acres of open space land for Uvas Creek Park Preserve extension, and
extends bicycle trails in compliance with the City’s master plan documents. As further
proposed and conditioned, instead of clustering lots to provide a frontage road along the
open space, the project would construct retaining walls to reduce grading, and provide
open wire fencing and landscaping enhancement along the rear of the lots backing to
open space. The Planning Commission has determined this design would provide
adequate views, security and protection of the open space areas, while facilitating the
desired development at a minimum net density of 3 units per acre.
d) The Community Resources Chapter policies 20.01, 20.02, 20.03, 20.06,
20.07, 20.08 and Action 20.B would be substantially satisfied, when these policies are
considered together with the entire general plan, given that the subdivision has been
designed and conditioned to avoid and protect sensitive open space habitat along Uvas
Creek by providing a setback of 150 feet from top of creek bank; which exceeds the
minimum setback of 100 feet required for the area and includes more than 35 feet
setback from the edge of riparian habitat to the parcels.
3) A legislative body shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which
a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans.
b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be
provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and
no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at
large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
h) Except as otherwise provided in the Subdivision Map Act, in determining whether
to approve or disapprove an application for a tentative map, the local agency
shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the
local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section
65943 of the Government Code.
i) For projects within a very high fire hazard severity zone, additional findings shall
be made confirming compliance with fire regulations, fire suppression, and
access.
Analysis: The subdivision would implement the ge neral plan low density residential land
use designation and, after dedication of public lands, provides the minimum density of 3
units per acre in the area upland of the Uvas Creek Park Preserve extension. As
proposed and conditioned the project includes a dequate on and off-site improvements
to comply with City standards, and setbacks that assure protection of sensitive
vegetation and wildlife. Further, the project will comply with all ordinances, policies and
standards in effect at the time the application was complete for processing, as of July
12, 2017, and all statutes adopted by the state for protection of health and safety
including vegetation management and flood control measures.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may approve the project with conditions as recommended or modified,
deny the project, or refer the project back to the Planning Commission for further study
or revision.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the City.
The applicant has submitted fees and is responsible for all staff costs associated with
preparing this staff report and the project environmental document. Future costs
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
associated with preparation of the final map, agreements, including legal fees will also
be paid by the applicant. Cost for subdivision improvement and ongoing maintenance
also will be borne by the applicant and future homeowners association. The
development would not create any costs for the City that have not previously been
identified and considered.
Public facilities and service needs of the development have been considered as part of
the City General Plan, and are accounted for by the General Fund. The City would also
incur ongoing maintenance obligations for the trail and open space areas; those costs
will be funded through general tax revenues.
CONCLUSION
Based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff has prepared findings
and conditions deemed appropriate to approve the subdivision. The Conditions were
provided to the applicant for review, and the applicant h ad requested changes to
several of the standard and required project conditions. Staff considered the applicant’s
requests carefully, and responded that most of the deletions or revisions requested
could not be supported, as the referenced conditions were necessary to assure that the
quality of development would be maintained during project implementation. Staff did
agree to remove a standard tree preservation condition, which was adequately
addressed by project mitigation measures, and to append Condition 10 in order to
acknowledge the applicant’s right to pursue time extensions pursuant to the Subdivision
Map Act.
Draft recommended conditions would assure that prior to filing of the final map the
applicant shall pay all required mitigation fees, identify utility undergrounding and street
lighting, identify tree planting areas that are required for street trees and mitigation of
tree removal, provide details for the design and construction of the retaining walls,
provide details for open fencing and landscaping enhancement required along the rear
of lots 9 through 14, provide a copy of the homeowners association obligations and
restrictions, and confirm the size and details for stormwater detention areas. Further,
project conditions are proposed to ensure that before the final subdivision tract is
accepted, that all of the required landscaping improvements and bicycle pathway
connections would be completed.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, a Notice of Determination must be filed within 5 days of action, and the
developer must submit a final map within 2 years, or request an extension of time.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Consistent with CEQA, the 30 day environmental review period was published in the
newspaper and posted at the County Clerk’s office, and the document was submi tted to
the State clearinghouse for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies and made
available for review at City Hall, the library and City website. Property owner information
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
(i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were provided to the City of
Gilroy using current ownership data. Consistent with Gilroy City Code 30.51.30, not less
than 10 days before the public hearing, on May 16, 2018, notices of the June 7, 2018
Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners and interested
parties, published in the newspaper and a 4’ by 8’ sign was installed on the property. On
or before October 5, 2018, notification was again provided pursuant to GCC 30.51.30
for the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting. In addition, public hearing packets are
available through the City's webpage.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map TM16-02
2. Resolution TM16-02
3. City Council Resolution 2006-75
4. CC Reso 2006-75 Prelim Site Plan
5. General Plan Consistency Table TM16-02
6. Final MND Responses to Comments
7. Final MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration TM16-02
9. ISMND Signed Agreement Form
10. ISMND Determination, TM16-02
11. ISMND Appendix A - Community Risk Assessment
12. ISMND Appendix B-1 - Arborist Report
13. ISMND Appendix B-2 - Biological Constraints Report
14. ISMND Appendix B-3 - Category 2 Stream Assessment
15. ISMND Appendix C - Archaeological Literature Search
16. ISMND Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Report
17. ISMND Appendix E - Phase I ESA and Soil Quality Investigation
18. Project Plans TM 16-02
19. Conceptual Retaining Wall Detail TM16-02
20. Letter from The James Group
21. SRTS Greenfield Dr 14 Lot Homes_
8.A.w
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: CC Oct 15 2018 Staff Report, Greenfield TM16-02 (1874 : TM 16-02 Greenfield Drive 14 Lot Residential Subdivision)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Adding a New Section 30.38.270 to the Gilroy City Code Entitled
"Protected Tree Removal" (Z16-05)
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Stan Ketchum
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting
amendments to Article 30.38 of the Gilroy City Code entitled “Landscaping, Water
Efficiency and Stormwater Retention and Treatment” to add a new section 30.38.270
entitled “Protected Tree Removal Ordinance” (introduced 10/15/18 with a 6-0-1 vote,
Council Member Tovar absent).
On October 15, 2018, the City Council voted 6 -0-1 to approve the Protected Tree
Removal Ordinance.
Motion to adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting
amendments to Article 30.38 of the Gilroy City Code entitled “Landscaping, Water
Efficiency and Stormwater Retention and Treatment” to add a new section 30.38.270
entitled “Protected Tree Removal Ordinance” (introduced 10/15/18 with a 6 -0-1 vote,
Council Member Tovar absent).
9.A
Packet Pg. 532
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission staff report, Sept. 6, 2018
2. City Council staff report, June 18, 2018
3. Planning Commission Resolution
4. Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal
9.A
Packet Pg. 533
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
DATE: September 6, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Citywide Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Chapter 30.38.270
Protected Tree Removal (Z16-05).
1) Request: The city recognizes that existing and future trees and tree communities
located in the city are a valuable and distinctive natural resource. Trees augment
the economic base of the city through encouragement of tourism and enhancement
of the living environment. Removal of trees reduces property values and the
scenic beauty and attractiveness of the city to residents and visitors. The purpose
of the proposed Significant Tree Removal Chapter is to protect existing and future
significant trees and tree communities through the establishment of an ordinance to
regulate the removal or destruction of significant trees, tree communities and
heritage trees on private property.
2) Recommendation: Staff has analyzed the proposal and recommends that the
Planning Commission:
a) Motion to Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the
Protected Tree Removal ordinance Z16-05 [Project No. 16040038]) as
requested. (Roll Call Vote)
3) Environmental Assessment: Section 15308 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, exempts actions by a regulatory agency intended to
assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the
environment. The Protected Tree Removal Ordinance strengthens the protection of
significant trees by establishing a permit process incorporating thorough analysis to
confirm the necessity to remove protected trees and heritage trees. The ordinance
protects those indigenous tree species found in the Gilroy area. The ordinance will
support the maintenance and restoration of the environment by establishing
regulations that impose penalties for removal of protected o r heritage trees without
issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit. The ordinance requires replacement
of multiple trees of the same species which will help restore and enhance the
Kristi A. Abrams
DIRECTOR
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Planning Commission staff report, Sept. 6, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
2
environment. Based on the above, there are no unusual circumstances that would
justify an exception to the use of Section 15308 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This ordinance is similar in character and extent to
other regulatory ordinances adopted for the protection of the environment that will
have the effect of limiting damage to environmental resources.
4) Background Information: The recently-adopted Zoning Code Article 30.38
Landscaping, Water Efficiency and Storm Water Retention and Treatment states
that existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved and incorporated into new
development, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director.
However there are no provisions in the current Zoning Ordinance that regulate the
removal of significant trees on private property when that private property is not part
of a development project. In order to protect this resource, it is the intent of this
ordinance amendment to regulate the removal or destruction of significant trees and
tree communities on private property within the city.
On November 13, 2017, Planning Staff held a Developer’s Roundtable meeting at
which the proposed Tree Removal Ordinance was reviewed. There was minimal
input from those in attendance. One suggestion made was that tree removal
mitigation measures included in certified environmental documents requiring a
higher replacement ratio and/or size of replacement trees than specified in the
ordinance should take precedence. That change has been incorporated into the
ordinance.
Prior Planning Commission and City Council Discussion
On February 1, 2018, Planning Staff presented the draft Protected Tree Removal
Ordinance to the Planning Commission. The Commission voted 5-0-1-0
(Commissioner Armendariz absent, one seat vacant) to recommend the City
Council approve the Protected Tree Removal Ordinance.
On March 5, 2018, the City Council considered the draft Protected Tree Removal
Ordinance. The Council raised a number of questions requiring additional staff
research and analysis, including the impacts of tree removal permits on single
family homeowners, the need for and cost of aborist reports, the types of trees to be
protected, and concern regarding proposed criminal penalties for violations. The
Council continued the discussion of the ordinance to a future date and d irected staff
to prepare additional information addressing the issues raised.
On June 18, 2018, Planning Staff presented additional information responding to
questions raised at the March 5 meeting, including proposed refinements to the
original draft ordinance and an alternative option for the ordinance elements
affecting single family properties. The Council directed staff to proceed with the
draft ordinance with two refinements. The June 18, 2018 City Council Staff Report
is included as an attachment for reference.
5) General Plan Consistency: The proposed ordinance is consistent with General
Plan Goal 23 Natural Resource Conservation: Conservation of natural resources
and high levels of environmental quality for current and future generations.
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Planning Commission staff report, Sept. 6, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
3
6) Analysis: The draft Protected Tree Removal Ordinance is incorporated in the
recommended Planning Commission Resolution (see Attachment 2). It reflects the
direction received from the City Council at the June 18, 2018 meeting. The
ordinance establishes required definitions, including the minimum size of a
protected tree and a heritage tree and the specific types of trees identified as
indigenous to the Gilroy area and protected by the ordinance.
The following are the primary components of the ordinance:
A. The application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and shall include
information to describe and justify the removal request. A report prepared by an
arborist certified by the International Society of Aboriculture (ISA), or other
equivalent organization shall be included that documents the health of the tree
and explaining the reason(s) for removal.
B. One or more of the following findings must be made to approve a tree removal
permit:
i. The tree is dead, diseased or in danger of falling.
ii. The tree could adversely affect the general public health and safety.
iii. The tree is determined to be causing damage or reasonably expected to
cause damage to existing buildings or interfere with utility services.
iv. The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or
creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the
use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of
similarly situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director that there are no
reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree.
v. Retention of the tree would result in reduction of the permissible building
envelope by more than twenty-five (25) percent.
The following finding must be made in addition to one or more of those listed
above:
vi. None of the tree management techniques referenced in the ordinance are
deemed feasible to save the tree.
C. Notice of the proposed removal shall be posted on the affected tree and in at
least two conspicuous locations on the site clearly visible to and readable from
public property.
D. Replacement tree(s) shall be of the same species as the tree that was removed
and shall be planted on the same site as the removed tree, whenever possible.
Planting of replacement tree(s) on public property or payment of an in lieu fee
may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Public Works.
E. The number and size of replacement trees shall be based on the number and
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Planning Commission staff report, Sept. 6, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
4
size of trees approved for removal, as indicated in Table 1, below. If the tree
being replaced is a tree that was required as a part of an approved Landscaping
Plan, the replacement species must be consistent with the Landscaping Plan.
Otherwise, the replacement tree may be of any species included on the Cit y’s
Master Tree Planting Plan.
Table 1
Replacement Tree Requirements
Trunk Size of Removed Tree
(measured at 4 1/2 feet above grade)
Replacement Ratio Required
(per tree removed)
Circumference
(inches)
Number of
replacement trees
Minimum Size
38 to 75 2 24 inch box
Greater than 75 2 36 inch box
Heritage Trees 2 48 inch box
If a mitigation measure for removal of a protected tree, community of protected
trees or a heritage tree contained in a certified environmental document requires
greater numbers or size of replacement trees than specified in Table 1, above,
that requirement shall supercede the requirements of this chapter.
F. Emergency Situations: In emergency situations caused by the hazardous or
dangerous condition of a tree that requires immediate action for the safety of life
or property, such necessary action may be taken to remove the tree or otherwise
reduce or eliminate the hazard without complying with the other provisions of this
Chapter, except that the person responsible for actions ta ken to reduce the
hazard or to remove the tree shall report such action to the Community
Development Department within five working days of that action. In addition,
photographs thoroughly documenting the hazardous or dangerous condition of
the tree shall be taken prior to any action to remove it. Such photographs shall
be provided to the Community Development Department upon request.
G. The decision of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the
Planning Commission within twenty (20) days after the decision by the
Community Development Director.
H. The violation of any provision contained in this Section is hereby declared to be
unlawful and shall constitute a public nuisance and a misdemeanor. As either a
public nuisance or a misdemeanor, the violation shall be subject to the penalties
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Planning Commission staff report, Sept. 6, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
5
or remedies as described in Chapter X of this Code and the provisions of Section
(h) Replacement, of this Section.
Ordinance Implementation
The Tree Removal Permit authorized by this ordinance will be processed
administratively by the Planning Division. The anticipated cost of the permit will be
approximately $300. In the previous City Council discussions, direction was given to
conduct extensive public outreach and notification of the new ordinance . Staff is
intending to publicize the new ordinance through the following efforts:
City website and Your Voice
City Social Media
City Press Release
Direct mailing to all landscape, tree services and arborists in the South
County area
Notification insert in the Gilroy Water Bills
Information handout to be available at the Planning Division Counter
7) Noticing: The public notice for this item, published in the Gilroy Dispatch on August
24, 2018, meets the Government Code requirement for projects of citywide
importance. In addition, Planning Commission packets are available through the
City’s webpage prior to the scheduled meeting.
Attachments:
1. City Council staff report, June 18, 2018
2. Recommended Planning Commission Resolution
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Planning Commission staff report, Sept. 6, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Article 30.38 Landscaping,
Water Efficiency, and Stormwater Retention and Treatment to Add
a New Section 30.38.270 Entitled Protected Tree Removal Permit
Ordinance (Z16-05)
Meeting Date: June 18, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Stan Ketchum
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff regarding draft ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides responses to questions raised by the City Council at the March 5,
2018 meeting regarding the proposed Protected Tree Removal Ordinance. Staff has
conducted further research regarding the issues raised, including identifying and
comparing the requirements of tree removal ordinances in other Santa Clara County
cities. This report presents refinements to the current draft ordinance and an alternative
option for the ordinance elements affecting single family properties. The City Council is
requested to provide staff with direction regarding which provisions to include in a
revised draft ordinance to be presented for Council consideration at a future meeting.
POLICY DISCUSSION
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
The City Council is asked to consider establishing an ordinance to recognize and
protect trees indigenous to the Gilroy area, and significant examples of any type of tree
(referred to as heritage trees), on private property with a new tree removal permit
process. The proposal to establish a permit process to regulate removal of trees on
private property is a significant policy decision.
The challenge before the City Council is to select the desired balance between the
imposition of new regulations and the establishment of protections for the important
species and sizes of trees that provide multiple benefits to the community. As identified
in the City Council Arbor Day Proclamation, trees in our city provide a variety of
environmental advantages, increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of
business areas, and beautify our community.
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2018, staff first presented the proposed Protected Tree Removal
Ordinance. Councilmembers asked a variety of questions and directed staff to conduct
further research on several issues, including the impacts to single family homeowners
from the ordinance requirements, the need for and cost of arborist reports, and the
criminal penalties to be assessed for violations of the ordinance. This report presents
the results of the additional research and responds to Council direction.
ANALYSIS
Staff has conducted further research regarding the issues raised by the City Council,
including identifying and comparing the requirements of tree removal ordinances in
other Santa Clara County cities. A summary and comparison of t he Gilroy draft
ordinance to that of Palo Alto, together with similar provisions in the cities Campbell,
Morgan Hill, Mountain View and Sunnyvale is provided in Attachment 1.
Based on Council’s previous discussion, staff presents a couple ordinance options for
City Council consideration, a revised current draft ordinance and an alternative option.
Revised/new language from staff’s previous presentation is shown in italics. No
changes are proposed for other ordinance components. (See Attachment 2 for a
comprehensive table of all aspects for consideration). An evaluation of each ordinance
provision is provided below:
1. Applicability
Current Draft Ordinance Alternative Option
All existing land uses: Single Family,
Multi-family, Commercial, Industrial
Single Family Residential:
Front Yard - Permit required
Backyard - No Permit required
Ordinance applies to existing multi-
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
family residential and all non-
residential uses
The current draft ordinance applies uniformly to all land uses, ranging from single and
multi-family residential to commercial and industrial uses.
The alternative option continues to apply to all multi-family, commercial and industrial
land uses. A permit would still be required to remove a Protected Tree or Heritage
Tree from a single family front yard. However, for single family residential, no permit
would be required to remove any tree from a back yard. The retention of a tree
removal permit for trees in front yards reflects the contribution of trees to the overall
aesthetic and environmental values shared by the residents of a neighborhood and
the importance of confirming there is a valid reason to remove a Protected or
Heritage Tree.
2. Protected Tree Type and Size
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
All Oaks, CA Laurel, Big Leaf Maple,
Madrone, Western Sycamore, CA
Buckeye, Alder
(Source: CA Native Plant Society)
Min. 38” C. (12” D.)
Community of Protected Trees (25%
or more)
All Oaks, CA Laurel, Big Leaf Maple,
Madrone, Western Sycamore, CA
Buckeye, Alder
(Source: CA Native Plant Society
Min. 38” C. (12” D.)
Community of Protected Trees (25% or
more)
The species included are indigenous to the Gilroy area, as identified by the California
Native Plant Society. The species of Protected Trees would remain the same in the
alternate provision. The minimum size of a Protected Tree is proposed to be revised
in both the current draft ordinance and the alternate provision. The minimum size
would be increased from 19’ in circumference (6” in diameter) to 38” in circumference
(12” in diameter), similar to some other cities. In the alternate provision the
Community of Protected Trees category would be eliminated. Removal of multiple
Protected Trees would still require a Tree Removal Permit under the ordinance
requirement for removal of an individual Protected Tree.
3. Heritage Tree
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
Same requirements
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
Any tree 90” C. (28.6” D.), or two trunks 72” C. (23” D.)
The minimum size for the Heritage Tree category is the same in both options. Most
other cities do not have a minimum size for Heritage Trees. Mountain View’s criteria
are any tree a minimum of 48” in circumference or oaks, sequoias, redwoods or
cedars a minimum of 12” in circumference. A question raised at the prior council
meeting dealt with the mechanism to designate Heritage Trees. In other cities,
Heritage Trees are designated by a Historical Commission or the City Council.
Criteria used include: importance to the community, distinctive form, size, age,
location, historic significance, cultural, educational, economic, agricultural, social or
indigenous heritage to city. The Council may wish to consider including such a
procedure in the ordinance.
4. Tree Removal Criteria
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
Same requirements
Any one of the following criteria:
Tree is dead, diseased, or danger of falling
Immediate threat to life or property
Is/could cause damage to buildings or utility services
Keeping tree restricts economic enjoyment of site or creates an unusual hardship
by severely limiting use of site in a manner not typically experienced by owners
of similarly situated properties; no reasonable alternatives are available to save
the tree
Keeping tree would cause loss of >25% of allowed building area
Separate criteria, in addition to above:
No tree preservation techniques are deemed feasible
The criteria for removal of a Protected or Heritage Tree are the same in both options.
In reviewing ordinances from other cities, staff found fairly similar criteria. The criteria
regarding restriction of economic enjoyment or creation of an unusual hardship
follows similar language from the Zoning Ordinance findings for approval of a
Variance from a code provision. The final criterion is to verify that there are no viable
tree preservation techniques available that could mitigate the threats to the health of
the tree. Staff also considered inclusion of some type of removal criteria based on
medical problems of residents linked to Protected Trees, but it was concluded that
such a criterion would be subjective and difficult for staff to implement consistently.
5. Tree Replacement
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
Same requirements – except no replacement tree required for removal of
backyard tree (see 1. Applicability)
Trunk Size of Removed
Tree (measured at 4 1/2
feet above grade)
Replacement Ratio Required
(per tree removed)
Circumference
(inches)
Number of
replacement trees Minimum Size
19 to 37 3 15 gal.
38 to 75 2 24 inch box
Greater than 75 2 36 inch box
Heritage Trees 2 48 inch box
The current draft ordinance includes requirements for the number and size of
required replacement trees, based on the size of the tree proposed for removal.
The alternative option includes the same replacement tree requirements for removal
of a Protected or Heritage Tree, including in single family front yards. This option
does not require a replacement tree for removal of back yard tree which would not
require a tree removal permit.
6. Arborist Report
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
Arborist report required for all
existing land uses: Single Family,
Multi-family, Commercial, Industrial
Single Family Residential:
Front yard – report not required unless
tree condition or removal criteria are
inconclusive
Back yard - No Permit/report required
Ordinance applies to existing multi-family
residential and all non-residential uses
An arborist report would continue to be required in all cases for tree removal on multi-
family residential, commercial and industrial properties. For single family residential, an
arborist report would not be required in cases where the health of the tree or
applicability of the other tree removal criteria is not in question. In cases where the
situation is not obvious, the Community Development Director or designee will
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
determine the need for an arborist report. No arborist report is required for removal of a
back yard tree which would not require a tree removal permit. Based on staff contacts
with several arborists, the cost of an arborist report can range from $250 - $600 or
more, depending on the size, type, condition and number of the tree(s).
7. Emergency Provisions
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
Same Requirements
If a tree poses an immediate threat to the safety of life or property, the minimum
necessary actions may be taken to reduce or eliminate the hazard without
issuance of a permit. Report removal to the Community Development
Department within five working days. Photo document prior to any action to
reduce the immediate threat. A Tree Removal Permit shall be submitted prior to
removal of the tree.
The requirements for emergency removal of a Protected or Heritage Tree determined
to be a threat to safety of life or property are the same in both options. The proposal
is typical of ordinances in other cities.
8. Penalties
Current Draft Ordinance (revised) Alternative Option
Violation = public nuisance &
misdemeanor
Fine of up to $2,500
Up to 6 months in jail
May require tree replacement
Tree removal after permit denial =
fine up to $2,500 or amt. = to value of
tree removed, whichever is greater
Civil penalties (per Palo Alto):
Civil action initiated by city
- court -imposed civil penalty:
Up to $5,000 for violation of ordinance
In the current draft ordinance, a violation would still constitute a public nuisance and
misdemeanor. However, the proposed maximum fine would increase from $1,000 to
$2,500 and the option of six months in jail is eliminated.
The alternative option proposes penalties similar to the Palo Alto ordinance in which
the city can file a civil action in court for imposition of a fine of up to $5,000 for
violation of the ordinance.
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
CONCLUSION
In order to provide protection to the indigenous and sign ificant trees in the community,
staff recommends the City Council accept the revised draft ordinance provisions for
inclusion in the final draft Protected Tree Removal Ordinance. The City Council is
requested to provide staff with direction regarding which provisions of the two options to
include in a revised draft ordinance to be presented for Council consideration at a future
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Based on City Council direction, staff will prepare a revised draft ordinance to be
presented for Council consideration at a future meeting. This action is
recommended to establish protections for trees that benefit the
community.
2. Should the Council choose not to proceed with the proposed ordinance, there will
continue to be no Zoning Ordinance provisions to regulate the removal of
significant trees on private property and minimal enforcement options to penalize
individuals who remove significant, valuable trees in the community. This action
is not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
No fiscal impacts are associated with this presentation to Council.
NEXT STEPS
Based on City Council direction, staff will prepare a revised draft Protected Tree
Removal Ordinance for consideration at a future meeting.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On November 13, 2017, Planning Staff held a Developer’s Roundtable meeting at which
the proposed Protected Tree Removal Ordinance was presented to Gilroy’s
development community. There was minimal input from those in attendance. One
suggestion made was that tree removal mitigation measures included in certified
environmental documents requiring a higher replacement ratio and/or size of
replacement trees than specified in the ordinance should take precedence. That
change has been incorporated into the ordinance.
The public notice for this item, published in the Gilroy Dispatch on February 16, 2018
meets the Government Code requirement for projects of citywide importance. In
addition, City Council packets are available through the City’s webpage prior to the
scheduled meeting.
Attachments:
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
1. Comparison to other cities - final
2. Summary of Tree Ordinance Changes
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: City Council staff report, June 18, 2018 (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO
THE GILROY CITY CODE (Z16-05) TO ADD SECTION 30.38.270 ENTITLED
“PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL” TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE”
WHEREAS, Gilroy City Code, Article 30, Section 30.38 pertains to requirements for
installation and maintenance of water efficient landscaping, storm water retention and
treatment in existing and new development; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that existing and future trees and tree communities
located in the city are a valuable and distinctive resource and that they augment the
economic base of the city through encouragement of tourism and enhancem ent of the
living environment; and
WHEREAS, the removal of significant trees and diminishing of tree communities
reduces property values and the scenic beauty and attractiveness of the city to residents
and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy held a public hearin gs on
February 1, and September 6, 2018 to consider the request and reviewed written materials
and oral comments related to the proposed code amendments; and
WHEREAS, the subject ordinance amendment is covered under Section 15308 of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as an action by a regulatory
agency for protection of the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council find
that there are no unusual circumstances that would justify an exception to the use of
Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such
finding is based on substantial evidence that the ordinance is similar in character and
extent to other regulatory ordinances adopted for the protection of the environment that will
have the effect of limiting damage to environmental resources .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Z 16-05 to amend the Gilroy
City Code to add section 30.38.270 entitled “Protected Tree Removal,” attached hereto as
Exhibit A, to the Zoning Ordinance.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ __________________________
Sue O’Strander, Secretary Tom Fischer, Chairperson
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
3
Exhibit A
30.38.270 Protected Tree Removal
(a) Purpose: The City recognizes that existing and future trees and tree communities
located in the city are a valuable and distinctive resource. These trees and tree
communities augment the economic base of the city through encouragement of tourism
and enhancement of the living environment. The removal of protected trees and
diminishing of tree communities would reduce property values and the scenic beauty and
attractiveness of the city to residents and visitors.
In order to protect this resource, it is the intent of this section to regulate the removal or
destruction of protected trees and tree communities on private property within the city.
(b) Definitions:
i. Community of Protected Trees. Any grouping of protected trees which are
ecologically or aesthetically related to each other such that the loss of several of
them would cause a protected ecological, aesthetic or environmental impact in the
immediate area, as determined by a certified arborist. In sections (d), (e), (g), and
(h) of this ordinance, the term “tree” shall refer to each and every tree in the
community of protected trees that is proposed for removal.
ii. Heritage Tree. A tree of any species with a single trunk of 90 inches in
circumference or more at a point four and one half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground or
with multiple trunks, two of which collectively measure 72 inches in circumference or
more at a point four and one half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground.
iii. Indigenous Tree. A tree which is native to the Gilroy region, including oaks (all
types), California Bay (Umbellularia californica), Big Leaf Maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), California Sycamore (Platanus
racemosa), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica) and Alder (Alnus glutinosa).
iv. Protected Tree. Any indigenous tree characterized by having a single trunk of
thirty-eight (38) inches in circumference or more at a point four and one half feet
(41/2’) above the ground. Nonindigenous tree species and orchards (including
individual fruit and nut trees) are exempt from this definition for the purpose of this
section.
v. Tree. A woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk, or a
multi-stemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and is
usually over ten feet high at maturity. This definition shall not include trees planted,
grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of
such trees pursuant to and as a part of operation of a licensed nursery business.
(c) Permit Required: It is unlawful for any person to cut down, remove, poison or otherwise
damage, kill or destroy or cause to be removed any of the following on any private property
without first securing a permit as provided in this section:
i. A protected tree
ii. Greater than 25% of the trees within the outermost dripline of a community of
protected trees
iii. A heritage tree
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
4
A separate tree removal permit shall not be required for projects which have been
approved through a discretionary process by the Planning Division, Planning Commission
or City Council and the removal of protected trees or community o f trees were reviewed to
ensure compliance with all requirements of this section and authorized by that approval.
Trimming, removal and other activities related to trees in the public right of way are
regulated by Section 26 of the Gilroy City Code.
(d) Application: Any person desiring to cut down, remove, destroy or cause to be removed
any protected tree, community of protected trees, or heritage tree shall apply to the
Planning Division for a tree removal permit on forms provided by the Division. The
application shall include information to describe and justify the removal request and a
report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Aboriculture (ISA) or other
equivalent organization acceptable to the Planning Manager. The aborist report shall
include all of the following, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Manager:
• Site plan showing location of the tree (include buildings, driveways, etc.)
• Clear pictures of the tree indicating location, details signs of failure or disease
• Description of species of the tree
• Estimated height of the tree
• Circumference or diameter at breast height of the tree
• Discussion of the general health of the tree
• Value of the tree according to the ISA tree valuation formula
• Discussion of the tree’s risk
• Discussion of why the tree cannot be saved, including consideration of the following
techniques:
Discussion of risk management pruning
Discussion of installation of structural support system
Discussion of improving site conditions/cultural conditions
Discussion of implementing integrated pest management programs
• Description of the method to be used for removal of the tree
• Reason for removal of the tree
• Proposed replacement tree, including species, size, location.
(e) Public Notice: The applicant shall cause a notice of the proposed removal to be posted
on the affected tree and in at least two conspicuous locations on the site clearly visible to
and readable from public property on a form provided by the Planning Division. T he
notices shall be a minimum of 8.5 x 11 inches in size. In addition, the notice shall be
mailed to the owners of record of all properties which are immediately adjacent to and
directly across the street from the property on which the tree is located. Th e notice shall
include the application number, a description of the proposal, including the location of the
tree to be removed, contact information for the Planning Division from which additional
information may be obtained and the final date for receipt of comments. A minimum of 10
days from the date of posting shall be given for comments to be received. No action shall
be taken on any application until the applicant has filed an affidavit that such posting has
been accomplished and the review period ha s expired. Emergency situations, as
described below, are not subject to this provision.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
5
(f) Application Review and Approval: The Planning Division shall review the application for
removal of protected tree, community of protected trees or heritage tree and shall
determine on the basis of the information provided and the findings listed in Section (g),
below whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the request.
(g) In order to approve an application for tree removal, the following findings must be
made:
i. At least one of the following findings must be made:
A. The tree is dead, diseased or in danger of falling
B. The tree is determined to be an immediate threat to life or property
C. The tree is determined to be causing damage or reasonably expected to cause
damage to existing buildings or interfere with utility services
D. The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or
creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of
the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly situated
properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director that there are no reasonable alternatives to
preserve the tree.
E. Retention of the tree would result in reduction of the permissible building envelope
by more than twenty-five (25) percent, and
ii. None of the tree management techniques referenced in Section (d), above are
deemed feasible to save the tree.
In granting any permit pursuant to this section, the Community Development Director may
attach reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the intent and purpose of the
section including, but not limited to planting of replacement trees, mitigation of visual
impacts and control of erosion.
(h) Replacement: Any tree approved for removal under this section shall be replaced.
Replacement trees shall be of the same species as the tree that was removed unless
otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. Replacement tree shall be
planted on the same site as the removed tree; however, if the site is inadequate in size to
accommodate the replacement tree , the replacement tree may be planted on public
property with the approval of the Director of Public Work s. Alternatively, the Director of
Public Works, at his/her discretion, may accept an in lieu payment for the value of the
removed tree to be used for tree planting in City parks. The tree value shall be established
by an arborist certified by the ISA or other equivalent organization acceptable to the
Director of Public Works using the ISA Tree Valuation Formula. The in lieu payment shall
include funds sufficient for the care of the replacement tree during their establishment
period as determined by the Director of Public Works. The number and size of
replacement trees shall be based on the number and size of trees approved for removal,
as indicated in Table 1, below. If the tree being replaced is a tree that was required as a
part of an approved Landscaping Plan, the replacement species must be consistent with
the Landscaping Plan. Otherwise, the replacement tree may be of any species included on
the City’s Master Tree Planting Plan.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
6
Table 1
REPLACEMENT TREE REQUIREMENTS
Trunk Size of Removed
Tree(measured at 4 1/2
feet above grade)
Replacement Ratio Required
(per tree removed)
Circumference
(inches)
Number of
replacement trees Minimum Size
38 to 75 2 24 inch box
Greater than 75 2 36 inch box
Heritage Trees 2 48 inch box
If a mitigation measure for removal of a protected tree, community of protected trees or a
heritage tree contained in a certified environmental document requires greater numbe rs or
size of replacement trees than specified in Table 1, above, that requirement shall
supercede the requirements of this Section.
(i) Emergency Situations: In emergency situations caused by the hazardous or dangerous
condition of a tree that poses an immediate threat to the safety of life or property, the
minimum necessary actions may be taken to reduce or eliminate the hazard without
complying with the other provisions of this Section, except that the person responsible for
actions taken to reduce the hazard or to remove the tree shall report such action to the
Community Development Department within five working days of that action. Photographs
thoroughly documenting the hazardous or dangerous condition of the tree shall be taken
prior to any action to reduce the immediate threat. A Tree Removal Permit, as specified in
this ordinance, shall be submitted prior to removal of the tree. The required arborist report
shall document the conditions that warrant removal of the tree, including the photographs
referenced above.
(j) Appeal. Anyone so desiring may appeal the decision of the Community Development
Director by written request to the Planning Commission and payment of the appeal fee
within twenty (20) days after the date of the decision of the Community Development
Director. The decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal shall be final.
(k) Civil Penalties for Violation. As part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess
against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this section a
civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per violation.
(l) Injunctive Relief. Any violation of this section shall constitute a public nuisance, and a civil action
may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation, in
addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
7
(m) Costs. To the extent the city prosecutes a violation of this section through a nuisance
abatement action, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the city if
it prevails shall be entitled to all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial,
reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in abating the violation
and/or in prosecuting the action. In all other civil actions brought pursuant to this section in which
the city prevails, the court shall award to the city reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AMENDING THE GILROY CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION
30.38.270 ENTITLED “PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL”
WHEREAS, Gilroy City Code, Article 30, Section 30.38 pertains to the removal of
significant trees on private property; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that existing and future trees and tree communities located
in the city are a valuable and distinctive resource and that they augment the economic base of the
city through encouragement of tourism and enhancement of the living environment; and
WHEREAS, the removal of significant trees and diminishing of tree communities reduces
property values and the scenic beauty and attractiveness of the city to residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has considered the zoning code
amendment request (Z 16-05), in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, and other
applicable standards and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy held noticed public hearings
on February 1, and September 6, 2018 to consider the request and reviewed written materials and
oral comments related to the proposed code amendments, and recommended approval of the
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy held noticed public hearings on March
5, and October 15, 2018 to consider the request and reviewed written materials and oral comments
related to the proposed code amendments, and recommended approval of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the subject ordinance amendment is covered under Section 15308 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as an action by a regulatory agency for
protection of the environment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Article 38 is hereby amended to add Section 30.38.270
Protected Tree Removal relating to the removal of significant trees on private property.
30.38.270 Protected Tree Removal
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
2
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
(a) Purpose: The City recognizes that existing and future trees and tree communities located in the
city are a valuable and distinctive resource. These trees and tree communities augment the
economic base of the city through encouragement of tourism and enhancement of the living
environment. The removal of Protected Trees and diminishing of tree communities would reduce
property values and the scenic beauty and attractiveness of the city to residents and visitors.
In order to protect this resource, it is the intent of this section to regulate the removal or destruction
of Protected Trees and tree communities on private property within the city.
(b) Definitions:
(1) Community of Protected Trees. Any grouping of Protected Trees which are ecologically or
aesthetically related to each other such that the loss of several of them would cause a
protected ecological, aesthetic or environmental impact in the immediate area, as determined
by a certified arborist. In sections (d), (e), (g), and (h) of this ordinance, the term “tree” shall
refer to each and every tree in the Community of Protected Trees that is proposed for
removal.
(2) Heritage Tree. A tree of any species with a single trunk of 90 inches in circumference or
more at a point four and one half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground or with multiple trunks, two
of which collectively measure 72 inches in circumference or more at a point four and one
half feet (4 1/2’) above the ground.
(3) Indigenous Tree. A tree which is native to the Gilroy region, including oaks (all types),
California Bay (Umbellularia californica), Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Madrone
(Arbutus menziesii), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California Buckeye
(Aesculus californica) and Alder (Alnus glutinosa).
(4) Protected Tree. Any indigenous tree characterized by having a single trunk of thirty-eight
inches (38”) in circumference or more at a point four and one half feet (41/2’) above the
ground. Nonindigenous tree species and orchards (including individual fruit and nut trees)
are exempt from this definition for the purpose of this section.
(5) Tree. A woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk, or a multi -
stemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and is usually over ten
feet high at maturity. This definition shall not include trees planted, grown and held for sale
by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as a
part of operation of a licensed nursery business.
(c) Permit Required: It is unlawful for any person to cut down, remove, poison or otherwise
damage, kill or destroy or cause to be removed any of the following on any private property without
first securing a permit as provided in this section:
(1) A Protected Tree
(2) Greater than 25% of the trees within the outermost dripline of a Community of Protected
Trees
(3) A Heritage Tree
A separate tree removal permit shall not be required for projects which have been approved through
a discretionary process by the Planning Division, Planning Commission or City Council and the
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
3
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
removal of Protected Trees or Community of trees were reviewed to ensure compliance with all
requirements of this section and authorized by that approval. Trimming, removal and other
activities related to trees in the public right of way are regulated by Section 26 of the Gilroy City
Code.
(d) Application: Any person desiring to cut down, remove, destroy or cause to be removed any
Protected Tree, Community of Protected Trees, or Heritage Tree shall apply to the Planning
Division for a tree removal permit on forms provided by the Division. The application shall include
information to describe and justify the removal request and a report from an arborist certified by the
International Society of Aboriculture (ISA) or other equivalent organization acceptable to the
Planning Manager. The aborist report shall include all of the following, unless otherwise approved
by the Planning Manager:
• Site plan showing location of the tree (include buildings, driveways, etc.)
• Clear pictures of the tree indicating location, details signs of failure or disease
• Description of species of the tree
• Estimated height of the tree
• Circumference or diameter at breast height of the tree
• Discussion of the general health of the tree
• Value of the tree according to the ISA tree valuation formula
• Discussion of the tree’s risk
• Discussion of why the tree cannot be saved, including consideration of the following
techniques:
Discussion of risk management pruning
Discussion of installation of structural support system
Discussion of improving site conditions/cultural conditions
Discussion of implementing integrated pest management programs
• Description of the method to be used for removal of the tree
• Reason for removal of the tree
• Proposed replacement tree, including species, size, location.
(e) Public Notice: The applicant shall cause a notice of the proposed removal to be posted on the
affected tree and in at least two conspicuous locations on the site clearly visible to and readable
from public property on a form provided by the Planning Division. The notices shall be a mini mum
of 8.5 x 11 inches in size. In addition, the notice shall be mailed to the owners of record of all
properties which are immediately adjacent to and directly across the street from the property on
which the tree is located. The notice shall include the application number, a description of the
proposal, including the location of the tree to be removed, contact information for the Planning
Division from which additional information may be obtained and the final date for receipt of
comments. A minimum of 10 days from the date of posting shall be given for comments to be
received. No action shall be taken on any application until the applicant has filed an affidavit that
such posting has been accomplished and the review period has expired. Emergency situations, as
described below, are not subject to this provision.
(f) Application Review and Approval: The Planning Division shall review the application for
removal of Protected Tree, Community of Protected Trees or Heritage Tree and shall determine on
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
4
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
the basis of the information provided and the findings listed in Section (g), below whether to
approve, approve with conditions or deny the request.
(g) In order to approve an application for tree removal, the following findings must be made:
(1) At least one of the following findings must be made:
A. The tree is dead, diseased or in danger of falling
B. The tree is determined to be an immediate threat to life or property
C. The tree is determined to be causing damage or reasonably expected to cause damage to
existing buildings or interfere with utility services
D. The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an
unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a
manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly situated properties, and the
applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director
that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree.
E. Retention of the tree would result in reduction of the permissible building envelope by
more than twenty-five (25) percent, and
(2) None of the tree management techniques referenced in Section (d), above are deemed
feasible to save the tree.
In granting any permit pursuant to this section, the Community Development Director may attach
reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the intent and purpose of the section including, but
not limited to planting of replacement trees, mitigation of visual impacts and control of erosion.
(h) Replacement: Any tree approved for removal under this section shall be replaced. Replacement
trees shall be of the same species as the tree that was removed unless otherwise approved by the
Community Development Director. Replacement tree shall be planted on the same site as the
removed tree; however, if the site is inadequate in size to accommodate the replacement tree , the
replacement tree may be planted on public property with the approval of the Director of Public
Works. Alternatively, the Director of Public Works, at his/her discretion, may accept an in lieu
payment equal to the value of the replacement trees required by Table 1, below. The in lieu payment
shall include funds sufficient for the care of the replacement tree during their establishment period
as determined by the Director of Public Works. The number and size of replacement trees shall be
based on the number and size of trees approved for removal, as indicated in Table 1, below. If the
tree being replaced is a tree that was required as a part of an approved Landscaping Plan, the
replacement species must be consistent with the Landscaping Plan. Otherwise, the replacement tree
may be of any species included on the City’s Master Tree Planting Plan.
Table 1
REPLACEMENT TREE REQUIREMENTS
Trunk Size of Removed Tree
(measured at 4 1/2 feet above grade)
Replacement Ratio Required
(per tree removed)
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
5
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
Circumference
(inches)
Number of
replacement trees Minimum Size
38 to 75 2 24 inch box
Greater than 75 2 36 inch box
Heritage Trees 2 48 inch box
If a mitigation measure for removal of a Protected Tree, Community of Protected Trees or a
Heritage Tree contained in a certified environmental document requires greater numbers or size of
replacement trees than specified in Table 1, above, that requirement shall supercede the
requirements of this Section.
(i) Emergency Situations: In emergency situations caused by the hazardous or dangerous condition
of a tree that poses an immediate threat to the safety of life or property, the minimum necessary
actions may be taken to reduce or eliminate the hazard without complying with the other provisions
of this Section, except that the person responsible for actions taken to reduce the hazard or to
remove the tree shall report such action to the Community Development Department within five
working days of that action. Photographs thoroughly documenting the hazardous or dangerous
condition of the tree shall be taken prior to any action to reduce the immediate threat. A Tree
Removal Permit, as specified in this ordinance, shall be submitted prior to removal of the tree. The
required arborist report shall document the conditions that warrant removal of the tree, including the
photographs referenced above.
(j) Appeal. Anyone so desiring may appeal the decision of the Community Development Director
by written request to the Planning Commission and payment of the appeal fee within twenty (20)
days after the date of the decision of the Community Development Director.
(k) Enforcement – Remedies for Violation: In addition to all other civil remedies set forth in this
code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies shall be available to the city for
violation of this section:
(1) Administrative Penalties. Whenever an enforcement officer charged with the enforcement of
this code determines that a violation of this section has occurred, the enforcement officer
shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person, firm, or corporation
responsible for causing, committing, allowing, or maintaining the violation, pursuant to
Chapter 6A of this code, and in accordance with the notice requirements and hearing
procedure contained therein. The administrative citation shall impose a penalty in an amount
set forth in the schedule of penalties established by resolution of the city council.
(2) Civil Penalties. As part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess against any
person who causes, commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this section
a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per violation.
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
6
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
(3) Injunctive Relief. Any violation of this section shall constitute a public nuisance, and a civil
action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such
violation. Summary abatement of any violation of this section shall be at the expense of the
person, firm, or corporation causing, committing, allowing, or maintaining the violation. The
city may make the expense of abatement a lien against the property on which it is
maintained and a personal obligation against the property owner.
(4) Costs. To the extent the city prosecutes a violation of this section through a nuisance
abatement action, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the
city if it prevails shall be entitled to all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the
costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in
abating the violation and/or in prosecuting the action. In all other civil actions brought
pursuant to this section in which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city
reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
SECTION II
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise void or invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
unconstitutional.
SECTION III
Pursuant to section 608 of the Charter of the City of Gilroy, this ordinance shall be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date it is adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of November, 2018, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
_________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Ordinance_Protected Tree Removal (1871 : Protected Tree Removal Ordinance)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of Budget Amendments for the Purchase of a Property at
271 Lewis Street and Assignment of the City's Option to Purchase
271 Lewis Street to HouseKeys
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Jim Carney
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Approval of budget amendments totaling $125,332.31, consisting of $50,184
from the Housing Trust Fund, $36,698.48 from the CalHOME fund, $30,579.13
from the BEGIN Reuse fund; $7,780.70 from the Los Arroyos fund, to allow
HouseKeys to purchase the property at 271 Lewis Street; and
b) Authorize the City Administrator to execute an Assignment of Option assigning
the City’s Option to Purchase 271 Lewis Street, Gilroy to HouseKeys.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council is requested to amend budgets for affordable housing loan fund s and
execute an Assignment of Option assigning the City’s Option to Purchase 271 Lewis
Street, Gilroy to HouseKeys. These actions would allow HouseKeys, the City’s
affordable housing loan portfolio administrator, to purchase the home, and ultimately will
result in the return of affordable housing loan funds and an equity share amount to the
City. These steps will retain the subject property within the City inventory of low-income
affordable homes. Also, these actions will allow HouseKeys time to find another low-
10.A
Packet Pg. 560
income qualified family to purchase the subject affordable home utilizing the loan funds
and equity share funds returned to the City.
POLICY DISCUSSION
The policy at issue is should the City and HouseKeys allow the subject homeowners to
sell the home at 271 Lewis Street, Gilroy on the open market and lose the home from
the City’s inventory of below market rate housing, or pool, of affordable homes. Or,
should the City approve budget amendments of the affordable housing funds to allow
HouseKeys to buy the home at 271 Lewis Street, and find another low -income qualified
buyer, thus keeping the home in the City’s affordable housing inventory. In either
scenario, the City will get its loan funds repaid and receive its equity share funds.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy is responsible for several hundred homes purchased with public funds
to remain affordable for current and future low-income families. Due to the increased
price of market rate homes over the past several years, the City has utilized a range of
public funds to assist low-income qualified homebuyers to buy homes at below market
prices. Currently, the City Housing Division of the Community Development
Department contracts with HouseKeys to administer the City’s affordable housing
portfolio.
As the City’s affordable housing loan portfolio administrator, HouseKeys has proposed
to purchase the home located at 271 Lewis Street, Gilroy. HouseKeys would then
identify an eligible moderate-income household to purchase the home, thereby allowing
the property to remain in the City’s program. This is a longer process than a typical sale
due to the time needed to ensure the new buyers meet the income restriction
requirements and to gain access to multiple down payment assistance sources.
In 2011, Efrain and Genevieve Prieto purchased the home (located at 271 Lewis Street)
with assistance from the several City managed low-income homebuyer loan sources.
This is a Below Market Rate Restricted Property that was purchased for $250,000, fair
market value at the time of purchase. Several deferred payment loans were layered on
title to make this home affordable to a below market rate buyer. In addition, there is an
Equity Share, based on the down payment assistance that was made possible. While
there were multiple sources of financing used for buyers to purchase 271 Lewis Street,
the Equity Share is based on:
$25,000 BEGIN Loan from the City of Gilroy, and
$6,434 Los Arroyos Loan that came from South County Housing
$30,000 CalHOME loan from South County Housing
10.A
Packet Pg. 561
The Equity Share allows the homeowner to share in the increase in property value,
providing incentive to maintain and improve the home. Conversely, the Equity Share
prevents the homeowner from purchasing a below market rate home and then selling it
at a profit to the benefit of the homeowner only. (Even below market rate pricing
typically increases in value year over year.) The funds the City receives from the Equity
Share are deposited in the various funds the City holds to assist below market rate
home buyers.
The total “Below Market Financing” of $61,434.00 (as it is described in their Restriction
Agreement) represents 24.6% of the Original purchase price of the home (the “BMR
Percentage”). South County Housing, the provider of two of the loans on the property,
went out of business in 2015. As a result of the assumption agreements between the
City of Gilroy and South County Housing, the City is the successor agency and entitled
to the Equity Share.
During the first fifteen (15) years of ownership 100% of the Equity Share (home equity)
goes to the City to replenish funds to assist additional Below Market Rate home buyers .
From years 16 through 30 the homeowner receives 50% and the City receives 50% of
the Equity Share. After 30 years, no more Equity Share repayment is due to the City
and the home owner receives all of the home equity upon sale or refinance.
The Closing Date on the original purchase was April 11, 2011. Below are estimated
payoff amounts, including interest. Note that the principle and interest are deferred
payments thus the payoffs show original principle plus interest.
# Funding
Source
Entity Fund ID Number
Issued by Finance
Dept.
Payoffs from 271
Lewis Street
1 City of Gilroy
BEGIN
City of Gilroy (HCD
Grant Agreement)
Fund 250 $30,579.13
2 Los Arroyos
Note
South County Housing
Assignment
Fund 261 $7,870.70
3 CalHOME
Note
South County Housing
Assignment
Fund 269 $36,698.48
Subtotal from Interest Payments $75,148.31
4 City Equity
Share
Based on Total Down
Payment Assistance
Housing Trust
Fund 259
$50,184.00
5 Total from Interest and Equity Share $125,332.31
Recommendation
1. Assist HouseKeys to purchase the home using the $125,332.31 from the BEGIN,
CalHOME, Los Arroyos and Housing Trust Fund as a discount so that the
10.A
Packet Pg. 562
estimated Fair Market Value of $454,000 only requires HouseKeys to use
$328,667.69 in capital to complete the purchase. HouseKeys would purchase
the home and resell to a below market rate buyer. This will require the City to
execute an Assignment of Option assigning the City’s Option to Purchase to
HouseKeys (enclosed). Recommended Option
2. Let the owner sell the property for Fair Market Value and have the City repaid the
estimated $125,332.31 total amount due from loans and equity share. This will
remove the home from the Below Market Rate portfolio. This Option is Not
Recommended
Attachments:
1. Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis
10.A
Packet Pg. 563
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Attention: Community Development Agency
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §27383
Space above this line for Recorder’s use.
APN: 841-83-007
271 Lewis Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
ASSIGNMENT OF OPTION
AND
BELOW MARKET-RATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
THIS ASSIGNMENT OF OPTION AND BELOW MARKET-RATE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into effective as of August _____,
2018 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Gilroy, a municipal corporation (the “City”)
and Nyanda & Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company d/b/a HouseKeys
(“HouseKeys”). The City and HouseKeys are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The Parties entered into that certain unrecorded Consultant Agreement dated as of April
1, 2017, (as subsequently amended, the “Consultant Agreement”) pursuant to which
HouseKeys provides services to City in connection with the administration of City’s Below
Market Rate homebuyer assistance program (the “BMR Program”).
B. Pursuant to the BMR Program, City provided certain financing or otherwise facilitated
the purchase of the property located at 271 Lewis Street in the City of Gilroy, known as Santa
Clara Assessor’s Parcel No. 841-83-007 and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”) by a household eligible to
participate in the BMR Program.
C. In connection with the purchase of the Option to Purchase and Resale Refinance
Agreement dated March 19, 2011 and recorded on April 11, 2011 as No.21141494, Book N/A,
Page N/A (the “Resale Restriction Agreement”) was recorded in the Official Records of Santa
Clara County.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
2
D. The owner of the Property desires to sell the Property, and pursuant to the Resale
Restriction Agreement, City desires to assign to HouseKeys the City’s option to purchase the
Property.
E. HouseKeys has agreed to purchase the Property and market it for sale at a restricted price
to a qualified homebuyer who meets the eligibility requirements of the BMR Program (“Eligible
Homebuyer”).
F. To facilitate the purchase and sale of the Property, HouseKeys has requested that the City
release and reconvey the Resale Restriction Agreement, and City is willing to do so upon
satisfaction of the conditions and on the terms set forth in this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows.
1. Assignment of Option. City hereby assigns to HouseKeys, and HouseKeys hereby
assumes from City, City’s option to purchase the Property pursuant to the Resale Restriction
Agreement.
2. Acquisition by HouseKeys; Property Maintenance. HouseKeys agrees that it will acquire
the Property, and will diligently market the Property and arrange for its sale to an Eligible
Homebuyer consistent with all requirements of the BMR Program and the provisions of the
Consultant Agreement. HouseKeys agrees that throughout the period that HouseKeys owns the
Property, HouseKeys shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the Property is protected from
vandalism, shall maintain the Property in the same or better condition as its condition on the date
of HouseKeys acquisition, shall maintain the landscaping on the Property and ensure that lawns
and shrubbery are kept in a trimmed, neat and litter-free condition, and shall, with the consent of
City, undertake any necessary or desirable repairs.
3. Recordation of Agreement; Release of Resale Restriction Agreement. City agrees that it
shall cause to be recorded in the Official Records a release and reconveyance of the Resale
Restriction Agreement and this Agreement concurrently with the closing for HouseKeys sale of
the Property to an Eligible Homebuyer, provided that (a) the new Eligible Homebuyer executes a
new resale restriction agreement for the benefit of City in the form required by City pursuant to
the BMR Program, and (b) the new resale restriction agreement is recorded against the Property
concurrently with the closing for acquisition of the Property by the new Eligible Homebuyer.
4. Restrictions on Conveyance of the Property. HouseKeys acknowledges and agrees that
the Property may only be sold to an Eligible Homebuyer in accordance with the requirements of
the BMR Program, and HouseKeys agrees that it shall not, without City’s prior written consent,
sell, lease, rent, assign, hypothecate, mortgage or otherwise transfer or convey the Property or
any part thereof. Notwithstanding the terms of this Paragraph 4, City acknowledges and agrees
that HouseKeys may hypothecate the Property as security for a loan made to HouseKeys by a
third-party lender in a principal sum up to THE TOTAL ACQUISTION COST OF FOUR
HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($454,000). The third-party lender shall be
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
3
deemed by the City an approved encumbrancer of the Property, pursuant to the Resale Restriction
Agreement.
5. Default and Remedies. HouseKeys failure to comply with the requirements of this
Agreement, the Consultant Agreement and the BMR Program requirements shall constitute an
event of default hereunder and shall entitle City to pursue any and all remedies available pursuant
to this Agreement, the Consultant Agreement, and/or the Resale Restriction Agreement, or
available in equity or under law, including without limitation, the exercise of option rights set
forth in the Resale Restriction Agreement, seeking an order for specific performance, and/or
seeking monetary damages.
Each of the remedies provided herein is cumulative and not exclusive, and City may
exercise from time to time any rights and remedies available to it under applicable law or in
equity, in addition to, and not in lieu of, any rights and remedies expressly provided in this
Agreement or the Resale Restriction Agreement.
6. Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties
and their respective permitted successors and assigns. Any reference in this Agreement to a
specifically named Party shall be deemed to apply to any permitted successor and assign of such
Party who has acquired an interest in compliance with this Agreement or under law. The terms
and conditions set forth herein are intended to run with the land and shall bind HouseKeys and all
successors, heirs, grantees and assigns, unless and until this Agreement is terminated by the
mutual written consent of the Parties.
7. Insurance. HouseKeys shall maintain in effect all policies of insurance required pursuant
to the Consultant Agreement. In addition, throughout the period that HouseKeys owns the
Property, HouseKeys shall maintain a policy of property insurance for the Property covering all
risks of loss (other than earthquake), including flood (if required) for 100% of the replacement
value of the improvements located on the Property, with deductible, if any, in an amount
acceptable to City, and naming City as loss payee. Companies writing the insurance required
hereunder shall be licensed to do business in the State of California. Insurance shall be placed
with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A: VII. HouseKeys shall provide
evidence of such policy prior to the closing date for HouseKeys acquisition of the Property.
8. Indemnity. HouseKeys shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by City) and hold
the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, consultants and
contractors (collectively, the “Indemnitees”) harmless from and against all liabilities, losses,
costs, expenses (including without limitation attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation), claims,
demands, actions, suits, judicial or administrative proceedings, penalties, deficiencies, fines,
orders, and damages (all of the foregoing collectively “Claims”) that directly or indirectly, in
whole or in part, are caused by, arise in connection with, result from, relate to, or are alleged to
be caused by, arise in connection with, or relate to HouseKeys ownership, operation,
management, marketing or sale of the Property or HouseKeys failure to perform any obligation as
and when required by this Agreement. HouseKeys indemnification obligations under this
Section shall not extend to Claims resulting solely from the gross negligence or willful
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
4
misconduct of Indemnitees. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier
termination of this Agreement.
9. Miscellaneous.
9.1 Notices. All notices to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in
writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective addresses specified below or to such other
address as a Party may designate by written notice delivered to the other Parties in accordance
with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by: (i) personal delivery, in which case notice is
effective upon delivery; (ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case
notice shall be deemed delivered on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt; or
(iii)nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the sender’s
account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is confirmed by the delivery
service.
City: City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Attention: City Administrator
HouseKeys: HouseKeys
409 Tenant Station #395
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Attention: BMR Program Administrator
9.2 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party fails to perform any of its obligations under this
Agreement, or if any dispute arises between the Parties concerning the meaning or interpretation
of any provision hereof, then the prevailing Party in any proceeding in connection with such
dispute shall be entitled to the costs and expenses it incurs on account thereof and in enforcing or
establishing its rights hereunder, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees and disbursements.
9.3 Waivers; Modification. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or provision of
this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no
waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving Party. An extension of time
for performance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for
performance of any other obligation or act, and no extension shall be valid unless in writing and
executed by the Party granting the extension. This Agreement may be amended or modified only
by a written instrument executed by the Parties.
9.4 Headings; Interpretation. The section headings and captions used herein are
solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The Parties
acknowledge that this Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of
both Parties, and the Parties agree, that since both Parties have participated in the negotiation and
drafting of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the
Parties, but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole, as if both Parties had prepared it.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
5
9.5 Action or Approval. Whenever action and/or approval by City is required under
this Agreement, the City or its designee may act on and/or approve such matter unless
specifically provided otherwise, or unless the City determines in its discretion that such action or
approval requires referral to City Council for consideration.
9.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, together with the Consultant Agreement contains the entire
agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
written or oral agreements, understandings, representations or statements between the Parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof.
9.7 Severability. If any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement is held by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement is defeated by
such invalidity or unenforceability.
9.8 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to
or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties.
9.9 Parties Not Co-Venturers; Independent Contractor; No Agency Relationship.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers,
or principal and agent with one another. Except as City may specify in writing, HouseKeys shall
not have any authority to act as an agent of City or to bind City to any obligation.
9.10 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each condition, term, obligation
and provision of this Agreement.
9.11 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of
laws. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, California or in the Federal District Court for the Northern District
of California.
9.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one instrument.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE.
(ALL SIGNATURES ON THIS DOCUMENT, EXCEPT CITY ATTORNEY, MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED
BY A NOTARY PUBLIC)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
6
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
CITY:
CITY OF GILROY, a municipal corporation
By: _______________________________
Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Andrew L. Faber,
City Attorney
HOUSEKEYS
By: _________________________________
Julius Nyanda
Chief Executive Officer
(ALL SIGNATURES ON THIS DOCUMENT, EXCEPT CITY ATTORNEY, MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED
BY A NOTARY PUBLIC)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
7
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Santa Clara} ss.
On , 2018, before me, ________________________, a Notary Public,
who personally appeared __________________________ who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person/s whose name/s is/are subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity/ies, and that by his/her/their signature/s on the instrument the person/s, or the entity
upon behalf of which the person/s acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
Signature of Notary Public (ABOVE AREA FOR OFFICIAL NOTARIAL SEAL)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
8
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Santa Clara} ss.
On , 2018, before me, ____________________, a Notary Public, who
personally appeared ______________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person/s whose name/s is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity/ies,
and that by his/her/their signature/s on the instrument the person/s, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person/s acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
Signature of Notary Public
(ABOVE AREA FOR OFFICIAL NOTARIAL SEAL)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
9
Exhibit A
PROPERTY
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF GILROY,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
LOT 7, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 9867,
ALEXANDER PLACE", WHICH WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON MAY 2, 2007 IN BOOK
813 OF MAPS, PAGES 31, 32, 33 AND 34.
APN # 841-83-007
271 Lewis Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Gilroy Assignment of Option - 271 Lewis (1860 : Budget Amendments to Affordable Housing Funds Accounts for Purchase of 271
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Report on Potable Water Demand and Supply for Imminent
Developments and Budget Appropriation from Water Enterprise
Fund for Design of a New Well System
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Gary Heap
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Receive report on imminent development in the next few years and projected
demand for potable water; and,
b) Authorize a budget appropriation of $200,000 to start design for a new well site
and associated systems.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Gilroy has undergone rapid development over the past several years
resulting in an increase in demand for water. The City’s Department of Public Works
has taken a proactive approach in determining the current level of water use versus the
available water supply by producing a Report on Potable Water Demand and Supply for
Imminent Development (attached).
In a typical water system’s planning and development process, a city holistically
evaluates the system for adequacy and then prepares a master plan. With the delay in
the completion of the City of Gilroy General Plan for 2040, Gilroy’s next Water System
10.B
Packet Pg. 573
Master Plan is still a few years out. Considering Gilroy’s projected demand for water in
the near future, the City may not have time to wait for the next water system master
plan to be completed before constructing a new well.
Based on the detailed analysis of imminent development, current daily water production,
and historical consumption, it is recommended that a new well be constructed by FY
2020-21in order to meet near-future water demand.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy has been experiencing rapid growth over the past several years. The
Association of Bay Area Governments reports the City of Gilroy as the second fastest
growing city in the region with a rate of change that is twice that of other Bay Area cities
at just over 4% a year. While the growth is mostly residential, there is also new
commercial and industrial development. New development and growth in population
creates the need for additional services including water, wastewater, and storm water
collection/distribution and treatment facilities.
In accordance with the General Plan 2020 land use and population estimates, t he City’s
Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Master Plans were adopted in 2004. New Infrastructure
Master Plans (Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain) will be developed in the next few years,
based on the General Plan Land Use and Growth Projections for the 2040 horizon .
Utility Master Plans are critical tools for quantifying and prioritizing utility infrastructure
for existing use, and to sufficiently accommodate and service future growth. As part of
the master planning process, important capital investments and programs are identified
and a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is developed which outlines costs associated
with providing the requisite service for current and future Developments (thereby
meeting Assembly Bill AB-1600 requirements). Master Plans are also defensible guiding
documents often used for long term budgeting purposes.
While Gilroy’s next Water System Master Plan is a few years out (given the delay in the
completion of the next General Plan), the Department of Public Works has taken a
proactive approach in determining the current level of water use versus the available
water supply.
ANALYSIS
The Gilroy potable water system is comprised of approximately 200 miles of pipeline, 9
groundwater supply wells with a cumulative production capacity of approximately
17million gallons per day, 6 booster stations, 10 storage reservoirs and associated
control and communication systems. There are also more than 14,000 metered service
connections, and 2,000 fire hydrants.
Historical Demands
10.B
Packet Pg. 574
Historical demands tabulated from monthly production records from 2000 -2017 indicate
that while the population increased from 41,464 to 55,336 (33%), the amount of annual
production has stayed almost the same (4,836 gallons per minute in 2000 and 4,844
gallons permit minute in 2017). Thanks to water conservation measures, demands
reduced drastically during the historic drought of 2013-2015.
However, there is a gradual increase in demand following the peak drought period. The
most recent per capita water use (gallons per capita per day – gpcd) is 126 gpcd
(compared to 168 gpcd in 2000, 155 gpcd in 2005, 146 gpcd in 2010 and 113 gpcd in
2015). Based on current trends and projected development growth in the city, the 2020
per capita water use is estimated to be 133 gpcd.
Water Peaking Factor
Based on historical water use, it is possible to determine annual water demand as well
as the size and complexity of a given water system. The peaking factor, defined as the
ratio of the maximum flow to the average daily flow, is a concept that has been used in
the drinking water industry for nearly 100 years to determine the peak demand in a
water system. Water peaking factors are significantly valuable in analyzing a water
system to determine future water consumption values.
Definitions associated with peaking factors which are relevant to this report are
discussed below:
Average Daily Demand (ADD):
The Average Daily Demand is typically computed using historical water usage. For this
analysis, the projected ADD was determined using the most current average per capita
consumption of water.
Maximum Daily Demand (MDD):
The maximum daily demand (MDD) represents the maximum consumption during any
one day of the year. The maximum day peaking factor is expressed as a ratio of the
maximum day demand (MDD) divided by the Average Daily Demand (ADD). The ratio
generally ranges from 1.2 for very large water systems to 3.0 or even higher for specific
small systems.
For the City of Gilroy, the single day with the maximum water consumption normally
occurs during the hottest month of the year. In general, the maximum day flow is 2.0 or
2.5 times greater than the average annual demand.
For the purpose of potable water demand and supply analysis, the maximum peaking
factor used in the 2004 Water System Master Plan was 2.3. In comparison, the ratio of
the maximum to the daily demand in Gilroy from 2000-2017 ranged from 1.44 to 1.61.
Peak Hourly Demand (PHD)
10.B
Packet Pg. 575
The maximum volume of water delivered to the system in a single hour expressed in
gallons per day. Distribution systems should be designed to adequately handle th e peak
hourly demand or maximum day demand plus fire flows, whichever is greater. During
peak hourly flows, storage reservoirs supply the demand in excess of the maximum day
demand.
For this study, a comparative analysis is performed using Peak Factor of 2.0 and 2.3 in
order to determine future MDD values. The reduction in Peaking Factor determines the
sizing of the source of supply, storage tanks, and booster station pumps.
Current and projected development levels
As mentioned above, the Department of Public Works has taken a proactive approach
to determining the available water supply versus the projected growth through
development, and be prepared for a surge in demand in the next few years. To that end,
the department directed Akel Engineering to perform this analysis using imminent
development information provided by City staff for the following areas:
Hecker Pass Specific Area (HPSPA)
First street Corridor
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area (GLRSPA)
Other City-Wide residential and commercial projects
Also, well production records from 2017 were provided by City Staff.
The following is a summary of Average Daily Demands (ADD) from development:
Development
Area/Project
Residential
Units
Other development Est. ADD
(million gallons
per day, mgd)
HPSPA 635 Low
Density
Residential
units
10 acres of general services
commercial along Hecker Pass
Highway
0.24 mgd
GLRSPA Approximately
1,400 Low and
Medium
Density
Residential
units
Fire station, Elementary School and
Town center
0.45 mgd
Other across
city
approximately
1,000 Low,
Medium, and
High Density
38 acres of non-residential including
General Services Commercial,
Hotel, and Industrial Park
0.29 mgd
10.B
Packet Pg. 576
Residential
units
Average Day Demands (ADD):
Existing Development: 7.2 mgd
Imminent Development: 0.9 mgd
Estimated 2022 Demand: 8.1 mgd
The increase in ADD due to imminent development is approximately 1 million gallons
per day.
Imminent Development Capacity Analysis
Existing supply, storage, and boosting facilities to meet requirements of existing and
imminent development demands were analyzed using the following methods:
Method 1: Evaluation consistent with 2004 Water System Master Plan (Maximum Day
Demand Peaking Factor of 2.3)
Method 2: Evaluation with alternate peaking factor criteria (Maximum Day D emand
Peaking Factor of 2.0, higher than the current ratio of maximum to the average daily
demand in Gilroy from 2000-2017 which ranged from 1.44 to 1.61)
Supply evaluation
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
• Existing supply deficit of 1.3 mgd
• Recommend the immediate construction of 1 New Well
• Imminent developments will trigger the construction of another New Well.
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
• No existing supply deficit
• Recommend the construction of 1 new well by 2019 to accommodate
imminent developments.
Storage Evaluation
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– No Storage Deficiency. Existing storage reservoirs capable of meeting
storage requirements of existing and imminent development.
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
– No Storage Deficiency. Existing storage reservoirs capable of meeting
storage requirements of existing and imminent development
10.B
Packet Pg. 577
Booster Station Evaluation
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– No Boosting Deficiency; existing booster stations capable of meeting
requirements of existing and imminent development= requirements of
existing and imminent development.
Recommendations
Supply Well Requirements:
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– Recommend the immediate construction of 2 New Wells
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
– Recommend the construction of 1 new well by 2019. Initiate Design
Process as soon as possible.
Time of Use (TOU) Analysis
A separate analysis was conducted considering the time of peak hour use in which a
reduction of 25% (production of 18 hours instead of 24 hours) was assumed in supply.
The results of this analysis yielded the following results:
Supply Evaluation (with TOU)
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– Existing supply deficit of 5.9 mgd
– Recommend the immediate construction of 5 New Wells
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
– Existing supply deficit of 3.6 mgd
– Recommend the immediate construction of 3 New Wells
– Recommend the construction of 1 new well by 2019 to accommodate
imminent developments.
Storage Evaluation (with TOU)
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– Pressure Zone 1:
• Storage deficiency of 2.3 MG
• Recommend the immediate construction of 2.3 MG Pressure Zone
1 storage tank
– Pressure Zones 2N, 2S, 3:
• No storage deficiency
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
10.B
Packet Pg. 578
– Pressure Zone 1:
• Storage deficiency of 0.8 MG
• Recommend the immediate construction of 0.8 MG Pressure Zone
1 storage tank
• Pressure Zones 2N, 2S, 3: No storage deficiency
Booster Station Evaluation (with TOU)
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– No Boosting Deficiency; existing booster stations capable of meeting
requirements of existing and imminent development.
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
– No Boosting Deficiency; existing booster stations capable of meeting
requirements of existing and imminent development.
Recommendations (with TOU)
Supply Wells Requirements:
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– Recommend the immediate construction of 5 New Wells
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
– Recommend the immediate construction of 3 New Wells
– Recommend the construction of 1 new well by 2019.
Storage Requirements:
• Method 1: (PF = 2.3)
– Recommend the immediate construction of new 2.3 MG tank (Pressure
Zone 1)
• Method 2: (PF = 2.0)
– Recommend the immediate construction of new 0.8 MG tank (Pressure
Zone 1)
The attached document provides a detailed summary of the type of demand/supply
analysis performed and the outcome of the analysis under the two scenarios – with and
without Time of Use (TOU) considerations.
ALTERNATIVES
The three alternatives are the following:
1. General Plan 2040 – wait for the General plan and subsequent water system
master plan process to complete at which time a more comprehensive analysis
of existing and projected city wide development will be performed and a full scale
Capital Improvement program (CIP) will be prepared. Staff does not
recommend.
10.B
Packet Pg. 579
2. Time of Use analysis results (PF=2.0) - Commence the design and programming
of 3 new wells (one well as soon as 2019) and one storage tank in Pressure
Zone 1. Given the impending 2040 water system plan master plan . Staff does
not recommend.
3. Commence the design, location and programing of one water well in anticipation
of increased water demand in the next few years, using a peaking factor of 2.0.
Staff recommends this option.
It is important to note that given the amount of time required to design and permit a well
site, advertise for bids and start construction, it is imperative for the city to commence
the planning and preliminary engineering process as soon as possible. It is estimated
that the design and permitting phase can be completed within 4-6 months.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
It is estimated that the design and estimating costs will be approximately $200,000.
There is sufficient fund balance in the water account to pay for design.
This is not an item that was anticipated in the last budget review and analysis and
therefore there is currently no funding appropriated for a new well.
In light of the imminent development level and increased water demand, it is
recommended council authorize immediate funding for the design of a new well system
and costs associated with the acquisition of a well site. Based on the design plans and
specifications, and cost estimate, a separate funding request will be submitted for the
construction and commissioning of a new well for FY 2020-21.
CONCLUSION
While the next Water system master plan is a few years out pending the completion of
the 2040 General Plan, the Department of Public Works has taken a proactive approach
in determining the current level of water use versus the available water supply. Based
on a detailed analysis of imminent development, daily water production and historical
consumption, it is recommended that a new well be constructed by 2019 in order to
meet near-future water demand. Staff recommends funding for a new well to be
provided in two phases starting with the design and programming phase to be followed
by construction funding. The request for a new well construction will be presented to
council as part of the next Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget.
Attachments:
1. Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water)
10.B
Packet Pg. 580
CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR IMMINENT
DEVELOPMENTS
PRELIMINARY
July 2018
CITY OF GILROY
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand and Supply Analysis Report and
Table 1 Hecker Pass Development ‐ Demand EstimateCapacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARY(sqft)(gross acre) (DU)(gpd/gross acre) (gpd)(gpd)1234567891011ResidentialHecker Pass North Cluster 2N 15.9 73 Low Density Residential 2019 1,930 30,603 70,387Lone Oak Village 1 0.9 22 Mixed Use Corridor High 2020 1,725 1,581 3,637Hecker Pass West Cluster122.295 Low Density Residential 2017 1,930 42,940 98,762Hecker Pass The Gardens114.873 Low Density Residential 2018 1,930 28,627 65,841Hecker Pass Heartland Triangle11.09 Low Density Residential 2019 1,930 1,942 4,467Hecker Pass East Cluster Existing129.5 186 Low Density Residential 2017 1,930 56,962 131,014Hecker Pass Heartland North Existing 19.315Low Density Residential 2017 1,930 17,956 41,298Hecker Pass Heartland Estates16.233 Low Density Residential 2017 1,930 12,020 27,646Hillside Homes2N9.315 Low Density Residential 2018 1,930 17,896 41,1622N2.54 Low Density Residential 2019 1,930 4,772 10,9762N3.15 Low Density Residential 2020 1,930 5,965 13,7212N3.15 Low Density Residential 2021 1,930 5,965 13,7212N3.15 Low Density Residential 2022 1,930 5,965 13,721Subtotal ‐ Residential179.7 635233,196 536,351Non‐ResidentialLone Oak Village ‐ Commercial 1 32,758 0.275 2.73 Mixed Use Corridor High 2020 1,725 4,717 10,850Commercial Center ‐ n/o Hecker Pass HWY 1 31,990 0.275 2.67General Services Commercial 2019 1,025 2,737 6,296Commercial Center ‐ w/o Autumn Dr1 31,250 0.275 2.61General Services Commercial 2020 1,025 2,674 6,150Commercial Center ‐ e/o Autumn Dr1 18,300 0.275 1.53General Services Commercial 2018 1,025 1,566 3,601Subtotal ‐ Non‐Residential9.5411,694 26,897TotalTotal Estimated Demands 244,891 563,248Notes:6/19/20181. Source: Development information received from City staff April 12, 2018.2. FAR values extracted from planning assumptions consistent with in‐progress City General Plan.3. Residential areas estimated from aerial imagery and development map provided by City staff October 12, 2017.4. Non‐residential areas estimated based on maximum building square footage and FAR.5. Assumed land use types consistent with in‐progress City General Plan.6. Source: Development information received from City staff October 25, 2017.7. Water unit factors consistent with in‐progress Water System Master Plan.8. Maximum Day Demand = 2.3 x Average Day Demand (2004 WSMP Criteria)FAR2Development Designation1 Maximum Area1 Maximum Day Demand8Average DayDemandWaterDemand Factor7Occupancy Year6Assumed Land Use5Units1Estimated Area3,4Pressure Zone10.B.aPacket Pg. 582Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 2 Glen Loma Development ‐ Demand EstimateCapacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARYDevelopment InformationNo. of Units2Area 3,4Calculated DensityOccupancy Year2(DU) (gross acre)(DU/gross acre)(gpd/gross acre) (gpd) (gpd)1 2 3 4567 8 9 10 11Residential1McCutchin Creek126 2.7 9.6 2020 Medium Density Residential 3,2508,775 20,1832Palomino133 5.7 5.8 2020 Low Density Residential1,930 11,001 25,3023Home Ranch152 7.8 6.7 2019 Low Density Residential1,930 15,054 34,6244Wild Chestnut2S43 9.2 4.7 2019 Low Density Residential1,930 17,756 40,8395Montonico2S84 11.7 7.2 2019 Low Density Residential1,930 22,581 51,9366Nebbiolo2S97 25.7 3.8 2020 Low Density Residential1,930 49,601 114,0827The Glen2S27 5.4 5.0 2021 Low Density Residential1,930 10,422 23,9718Malvasia2S185 14.0 13.2 2020 Medium Density Residential 3,250 45,500 104,6509Canyon Creek2S47 9.4 5.0 2021 Low Density Residential1,930 18,142 41,72710Rocky Knoll2S33 4.2 7.9 2021 Low Density Residential1,9308,106 18,64411Town Center Multi‐Family2S305 25.9 11.8 2020 Medium Density Residential 3,250 84,175 193,60312Luchessa2S49 5.3 9.2 2019 Medium Density Residential 3,250 17,225 39,61813Petite Sirah2S692017 Low Density Residential1,930 20,458 47,0538201814Mataro2S54 10.9 5.0 2017 Low Density Residential1,930 21,037 48,38515The Grove2S64 12.8 5.0 2019 Low Density Residential1,930 24,704 56,81916Vista Bella2S147 24.6 6.0 2017 Low Density Residential 1,930 47,478 109,19917 Town Center Commercial 2S 60 5.5 10.9 2022 Medium Density Residential 3,250 17,875 41,113Subtotal ‐ Residential 1,383 191.4439,890 1,011,747Non‐Residential18Fire Station2S1.52020Public Facility1,0251,5383,53619 Olive Grove Elementary School112.02022Public Facility1,025 12,300 28,29020Town Center Commercial2S1.02022General Commercial1,0251,0252,358Subtotal ‐ Non‐Residential 0 14.514,863 34,184TotalTotal Estimated Demands 454,753 1,045,931Notes:6/19/20181. Pressure Zone location consistent with Previous Glen Loma Analysis.2. Source: Development information received from City staff October 25, 2017.3. Residential acres based on site plan received from City staff October 12, 2017.4.Non‐residential acres based on development information received from City staff October 25, 2017.5. Assumed land use type based on in‐progress City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan.6. Water demand factor consistent with in‐progress Water System Master Plan.7. Maximum Day Demand = 2.3 x Average Day Demand (2004 WSMP Criteria)7.310.6Maximum Day Demand7NeighborhoodWater Demand Factor6Average Day DemandAssumed Land Use5Pressure 1Zone10.B.aPacket Pg. 583Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 3 Other Developments ‐ Demand Estimate Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments City of GilroyPRELIMINARY(sqft) (gross acre) (DU) (units/ acre)(gpd) (gpd)1234567891011 12 13ResidentialHarvest Park I Apartments 1 2.0 66 32.3 High Density Residential 2019 gpd/acre 4,500 9,191 21,140Harvest Park II Single Family 1 15.8 57 3.6 Low Density Residential2018gpd/acre1,930 30,513 70,179Harvest Park II Apartments811.03232.3 Medium Density Residential2018gpd/acre3,250 3,219 7,403Monterey Gateway Apartments12.17536.6High Density Residential2020gpd/acre4,500 9,233 21,236Cambridge Place110.3706.8Low Density Residential2018gpd/acre1,930 19,881 45,726The Cannery Apartments14.920040.5High Density Residential2019gpd/acre4,500 22,229 51,1261st and Kern Apartments11.72716.0 Medium Density Residential2018gpd/acre3,250 5,472 12,5861st and Kern Apartments12.23516.0 Medium Density Residential2019gpd/acre3,250 7,094 16,316Alexander Station Apartments16.127044.3High Density Residential2019gpd/acre4,500 27,397 63,013Mwalli ‐ Phase 1911.02524.0High Density Residential2019gpd/acre4,500 4,688 10,781Mwalli ‐ Phase 2917.317524.0High Density Residential2020gpd/acre4,500 32,813 75,469Monterey Road Mixed Use10.96Mixed Use Corridor High2020gpd/acre1,725 1,466 3,372Subtotal ‐ Residential55.31,038173,195 394,975Non‐ResidentialPFG Food Group10185,000 7.1 0.275Industrial Park2019gpd/acre1,500 10,644 24,4801st and Kelton Commercial Complex I112,000 0.9 0.316General Services Commercial2018gpd/acre1,025893 2,0531st and Kelton Commercial Complex II 120,000 1.5 0.316General Services Commercial2019gpd/acre1,025 1,488 3,422Gilroy Self Storage 160,000 3.3 0.413General Services Commercial2019gpd/acre1,025 3,417 7,859Chevron Gas Station 120,000 1.4 0.338General Services Commercial2019gpd/acre1,025 1,391 3,199Silacci Way Commercial1120,000 5.6 0.489General Services Commercial2019gpd/acre1,025 5,773 13,278San Ysidro Self Storage1110,000 7.1 0.354General Services Commercial2018gpd/acre1,025 7,310 16,814Hampton Inn 111400Hotel Development2018gpd/ hotel room 188 75,000 172,500Obata Way Industrial ‐ Phase 112120,000 1.1Industrial Park2019gpd/acre1,500 1,722 3,960Obata Way Industrial ‐ Phase 212120,000 1.1Industrial Park2020gpd/acre1,500 1,722 3,960Camino Arroyo Self Storage ‐ Phase 113140,000 2.2General Services Commercial2019gpd/acre1,025 2,278 5,239Camino Arroyo Self Storage ‐ Phase 213160,000 3.3General Services Commercial2020gpd/acre1,025 3,417 7,859Monterey Road Mixed Use 110,000 0.9Mixed Use Corridor High2020gpd/acre1,725 1,466 3,372Cameron Self Storage12140,000 2.2General Services Commercial2019gpd/acre1,025 2,278 5,239Subtotal ‐ Non‐Residential37.80118,798 273,235TotalTotal Estimated Demands 291,992 668,210Notes:6/19/2018. Source: Development information received from City staff November 06, 2017 and April 12, 2018.2. Unless noted otherwise, development areas estimated from aerial imagery and development map provided by City staff November 6, 2017.3. Unless noted otherwise, FAR ratios calculated by extracting estimated area of the development on aerial imagery. 4. Assumed land use types consistent with in‐progress City General Plan.5. Source: Development information received from City staff April 12, 2018.6. Water unit factors consistent with in‐progress Water System Master Plan.7. Maximum Day Demand = 2.3 x Average Day Demand (2004 WSMP Criteria)8. Harvest Park II Apartment complexes assumed to have the same residential density as Harvest Park I development.9. Mwali Land Use type to be confirmed by City staff. 10. PFG Food Group estimated area based on FAR value of 0.275, consistent with in‐progress City General Plan.Calculated Residential DensityOccupancy Year5WaterDemand Factor6Average DayDemandMaximum Day Demand7Assumed Land Use4Water Demand Factor UnitDevelopment Designation1 Maximum Area1 FAR 3Estimated Area 2Units1Pressure Zone10.B.aPacket Pg. 584Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 4 Existing and Imminent DemandsCapacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARYAverage Day Demands (mgd)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Existing16.98‐‐‐‐‐Glen Loma 0.09 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.04 0.03Hecker Pass0.130.050.040.010.010.01Potential Agri‐Tourism User2‐‐‐‐‐0.13Other Future 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00Total Average Day Demands (mgd)Annual 7.19 0.19 0.24 0.27 0.04 0.17Cumulative 7.19 7.38 7.62 7.89 7.938.10Total Maximum Day Demands (mgd)Cumulative (PF = 2.3) 16.55 16.98 17.53 18.14 18.2418.63Cumulative (PF = 2.0) 14.39 14.77 15.24 15.77 15.86 16.206/20/2018Notes:1. Existing Average Day Demands based on PWSS report provided by City staff June 19, 2018.estimated assuming production 10% greater than 2016.2. Potential Agri‐Tourism user demand estimated based on the following assumptions:‐ 500 total hotel rooms‐ 4.2 people per room‐ 60 gallons per person per day, based on historical demand and population.10.B.aPacket Pg. 585Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 5A Supply Capacity Evaluation ‐ Year 2022 (No TOU)
Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments
City of Gilroy
PRELIMINARY
Available Supply
Groundwater Supply Capacity1,2
No. 1 1,280 gpm No. 6 1,500 gpm
No. 2 930 gpm No. 7 1,300 gpm
No. 3 2,194 gpm No. 8 2,200 gpm
No. 4 1,116 gpm No. 8A 240 gpm
No. 5 1,600 gpm
Total Capacity 12,360 gpm/ 17.8 mgd
Supply Capacity Analysis
Supply Capacity Criteria 3
Supply Capacity Analysis
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Available Supply 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8
Total Required Supply (MDD + 2.6 MGD from Standby Well)
Peaking Factor = 2.3
Required Supply, mgd 19.1 19.6 20.1 20.7 20.8 21.2
Supply Surplus/Deficit, mgd ‐1.3 0.4 2.0 1.4 1.3 0.9
Recommended New Wells
(1,500 gpm)11
Peaking Factor = 2.0
Required Supply, mgd 17.0 17.4 17.8 18.4 18.5 18.8
Supply Surplus/Deficit, mgd 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.2
Recommended New Wells
(1,500 gpm)1
Recommended Well Capacity
PF = 2.3 2 New Wells at 1,500 gpm each
PF = 2.0 1 New Well at 1,500 gpm
6/19/2018
1. Capacity for wells 5, 6, 8, and 8A extracted from City of Gilroy in‐progress Water System Master Plan
2. Capacity for wells 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 per phone conversation with City staff on September 25, 2017.
3. Source: City of Gilroy in‐progress Water System Master Plan
Total supply capacity to equal Maximum Day Demand + Standby Well (2.6 mgd)
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand and Supply Analysis Report and
Table 5B Supply Capacity Evaluation ‐ Year 2022 (With TOU)
Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments
City of Gilroy
PRELIMINARY
Available Supply
Groundwater Supply Capacity1,2
No. 1 1,280 gpm No. 6 1,500 gpm
No. 2 930 gpm No. 7 1,300 gpm
No. 3 2,194 gpm No. 8 2,200 gpm
No. 4 1,116 gpm No. 8A 240 gpm
No. 5 1,600 gpm
Total Capacity 12,360 gpm/ 17.8 mgd
Total Capacity with TOU4 9,270 gpm/ 13.3 mgd
Supply Capacity Analysis
Supply Capacity Criteria 3
Supply Capacity Analysis
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Available Supply 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
Total Required Supply (MDD + 2.6 MGD from Standby Well)
Peaking Factor = 2.3
Required Supply, mgd 19.1 19.6 20.1 20.7 20.8 21.2
Supply Surplus/Deficit, mgd ‐5.8 1.9 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.2
Recommended New Wells4
(1,125 gpm)5
Peaking Factor = 2.0
Required Supply, mgd 17.0 17.4 17.8 18.4 18.5 18.8
Supply Surplus/Deficit, mgd ‐3.6 0.8 0.4 1.5 1.4 1.0
Recommended New Wells4
(1,125 gpm)31
Recommended Well Capacity
PF = 2.3 5 New Wells at 1,125 gpm each
PF = 2.0 4 New Well at 1,125 gpm
6/19/2018
1. Capacity for wells 5, 6, 8, and 8A extracted from City of Gilroy in‐progress Water System Master Plan
2. Capacity for wells 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 per phone conversation with City staff on September 25, 2017.
3. Source: City of Gilroy in‐progress Water System Master Plan
4. New well capacity assumes 1,500 gpm design capacity operating 18 hours per day.
Total supply capacity to equal Maximum Day Demand + Standby Well (2.6 mgd)
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand and Supply Analysis Report and
Table 6A Storage Capacity Evaluation ‐ Year 2022 (No TOU)Capacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARYStorage Requirement2Surplus/DeficiencyStorage Requirement2Surplus/Deficiency(MG)(MG)(MG)(MG)(MG)Pressure Zone 1 10.30 8.681.627.662.64Pressure Zone 2 North 0.82 0.440.380.400.42Pressure Zone 2 South 2.13 1.400.731.260.87Pressure Zone 3 0.82 0.420.400.390.436/19/2018Notes:1. Source: City of Gilroy 2004 Water System Master Plan2. Storage criteria are summarized as follows:Pressure Zone 1: Required Storage = Operational (25% MDD) + Emergency (25% MDD) + Fire (0.9 MG)Other Pressure Zones: Required Storage = Operational (25% MDD) + Emergency (50% MDD) + Fire (Zone 2S = 0.3 MG, Zone 2N & 3 = 0.18 MG)Pressure ZoneCapacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor = 2.3)Capacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor = 2.0)Existing Storage110.B.aPacket Pg. 588Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 6B Storage Capacity Evaluation ‐ Year 2022 (With TOU)Capacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARYStorage Requirement2,3 Surplus/DeficiencyStorage Requirement2,3 Surplus/Deficiency(MG)(MG)(MG)(MG)(MG)Pressure Zone 110.3012.57‐2.2711.05‐0.75Pressure Zone 2 North 0.820.520.300.480.34Pressure Zone 2 South 2.131.770.361.580.55Pressure Zone 30.820.500.320.460.366/19/2018Notes:1.Source: City of Gilroy 2004 Water System Master Plan2.Storage criteria based on City 2004 WSMP and are summarized as follows:Pressure Zone 1: Required Storage = Operational (25% MDD) + Emergency (25% MDD) + Fire (0.9 MG)Other Pressure Zones: Required Storage = Operational (25% MDD) + Emergency (50% MDD) + Fire (Zone 2S = 0.3 MG, Zone 2N & 3 = 0.18 MG)3.Storage requirement also includes 6‐hour TOU requirement (25% MDD)Pressure ZoneExisting Storage1Capacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor = 2.3)Capacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor = 2.0)10.B.aPacket Pg. 589Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 7A Booster Station Capacity Evaluation ‐ Year 2022 (No TOU)Capacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARYCapacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor 2.3)Capacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor 2.0)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)Pressure Zone 1‐‐‐‐‐Pressure Zone 2N3.80.663.110.583.20Pressure Zone 2S3.11.471.611.281.80Pressure Zone 31.70.321.350.281.39Notes:6/19/20181. Unless noted otherwise, pump station firm capacity equal to total capacity with largest unit not operating, as extracted from City of Gilroy 2004 Water System Master Plan2. Booster Station 5 firm capacity, serving Pressure Zone 2S, accounts for recently constructed pumps (3 @ 580 gpm, 2 Duty + 1 Standby)3. Pressure zone firm booster station capacity equal to combined firm capacity of all influent booster stations.4. Firm booster station capacity to meet MDD of all supply dependent zones over 24‐hour period. Required Capacity4Required Capacity4Surplus/ DeficiencyFirm Booster Station Capacity1,2,3Pressure ZoneSurplus/ Deficiency10.B.aPacket Pg. 590Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
Table 7B Booster Station Capacity Evaluation ‐ Year 2022 (With TOU)Capacity Requirements for Imminent DevelopmentsCity of GilroyPRELIMINARYCapacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor 2.3)Capacity Evaluation(Peaking Factor 2.0)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)Pressure Zone 1‐‐‐‐‐Pressure Zone 2N3.81.162.611.012.76Pressure Zone 2S3.12.570.512.240.84Pressure Zone 31.70.561.110.491.18Notes:6/19/20181. Unless noted otherwise, pump station firm capacity equal to total capacity with largest unit not operating, as extracted from City of Gilroy 2004 Water System Master Plan2. Booster Station 5 firm capacity, serving Pressure Zone 2S, accounts for recently constructed pumps (3 @ 580 gpm, 2 Duty + 1 Standby)3. Pressure zone firm booster station capacity equal to combined firm capacity of all influent booster stations.4. Firm booster station capacity to meet MDD of all supply dependent zones over 18‐hour period. Required Capacity4Surplus/ DeficiencyRequired Capacity4Surplus/ DeficiencyFirm Booster Station Capacity1,2,3Pressure Zone10.B.aPacket Pg. 591Attachment: Capacity Requirements for Imminent Developments (Water) (1653 : Potable Water Demand
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of a Proposed One-Year Pilot Program to Grant
Local Non-Profit Organizations the Waiving of Facility Reservations
Fees
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Recreation Department
Submitted By: Maria De Leon
Prepared By: Maria De Leon
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of a one-year pilot program waiving facility reservation fees for local non -profit
organizations one-time per a year in support of their fundraising efforts.
BACKGROUND
At the June 18, 2018 City Council meeting, Council requested staff to review the current
City reservation policy for public facilities and conduct analysis of the feasibility to offer
local non-profit organizations the use of City facilities free of charge when holding a
fundraiser that benefits the Gilroy community. Examp les of fundraising efforts include
the raising of funds for agency programs, services, youth scholarships and agency
grants.
The City of Gilroy has several public buildings and parks available for reservations for a
variety of functions throughout the year. The existing reservation policy lists fees for
user groups to rent public facilities. Based on a user group classification system, the
fees are broken into three categories: Free (City, GUSD & other governmental
10.C
Packet Pg. 592
agencies), Discounted (non-profit organizations & residents), or Market Rate (non-
residents & businesses).
The City of Gilroy provides a fee schedule to off -set the costs incurred by the usage
from facility users. The City reservation policies for public facilities and parks were
updated in collaboration with a committee made up of representatives from Public
Works, Parks, Facilities and Recreation programs in 2014. The policy established a
classification system. For a listing of users by groups, see Table 1:
Table 1
GROUP IDENTIFICATION & DEFINITON
A City Sponsored Programs
City and GUSD programs, activities and events
B Non-Profit Organizations
C Private Functions – Residents
City of Gilroy residents (Private functions and/or
open to the public)
D Non-Residents or Commercial
Non-Residents, company or group (Social, business,
educational or for-profit)
Currently, only City, and the Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) reservations can use
a city-owned facility at no cost for programs, activities and special events.
Using the Willey Cultural Center as a facility reservation example, see Table 2.
Table 2
GROUP CLASSIFICATION WILLEY CULTURAL
CENTER
HOURLY RENTAL RATES
Deposit Hourly Fee
Group A N/A N/A
Group B $250 $35
10.C
Packet Pg. 593
Group C $250 $45
Group D $250 $55
When reserving the Gilroy Senior Center, Wheeler and the Willey Cultural Center, there
are additional fees incurred by the user such as a Facility Attendant ($16/hour) and/or
Custodian ($22/hour).
ANALYSIS
To learn about how other cities manage rental city-owned facilities for local non-profit
organizations, staff surveyed six municipalities in the region to look at their reservation
policies concerning non-profit organization (NPO) rental rates. Table 3 is the outcome
of staff’s inquiries:
TABLE 3
City
Existing
Facility
Reservation
Policy
Offer NPO
Discounted
Rates
Can NPO’s hold
fundraising
activities/events
in public
facilities
If yes, does
fee
decrease,
increase or
stay the
same?
For
fundraising
events, do
cities offer
NPO’s free
use of public
facilities?
Fremont Yes Yes Yes Stays the
Same
No
San Jose Yes Yes Yes Stays the
Same
No
Watsonville Yes Yes Yes Increases
50%
No
Morgan Hill Yes Yes Yes Stays the
Same
No
Campbell Yes Yes Yes Increases
(varied
amounts)
No
Milpitas Yes Yes Yes Stays the
same
No
Although all of the cities contacted offered a discounted rate of their facilities for NPO’s,
none of them offered a facility for free when a fundraising event was held. In fact, two
cities (Watsonville and Campbell) charged more when the event was a fundra iser as
opposed to a non-fundraising event.
CITY AND NPO PARTNERSHIP
The City of Gilroy recognizes local NPO’s as valuable community partners in delivering
a range of culturally appropriate and accessible services to the residents. According to
the Finance Department, there is 75 registered NPO’s based in Gilroy.
10.C
Packet Pg. 594
Similar to government agencies, NPO’s face economic challenges and at times, can
experience a decline in philanthropic support. These organizations depend on outside
contributions, grants and fundraising efforts. Modifying the existing Parks and Facility
Reservation Policy to allow local NPO’s use of a public facility at no-cost to support their
fundraising efforts can strengthen their relationship with the City. By providing a
financial subsidy in the form of a licensing fee of $1, these organizations can maximize
their resources and reach Gilroy’s most vulnerable residents.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
For example if all 75 NPO’s become aware of this policy, a couple of issues arise; 1) the
availability of these facilities for public reservations will be impacted; and, 2) decrease of
facility rental income to the Recreation Department. However, the one-time use could
be limited to existing local NPO’s with a history of making financial contributions yet are
relatively small organizations with limited resources.
Staff has attempted to identify local NPO’s which are small organizations and conduct
fundraising activities that make positive contributions to the community. These NPOs,
include, but not limited to: Gilroy Arts Alliance, Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, Gilroy
Rotary, Gilroy Foundation, Latino Family Fund, Gilroy Downtown Business Association,
YMCA, CARAS, St. Joseph’s Family Center, Rebekah Children’s Services and Youth
Alliance.
The fiscal impacts to the General Fund will vary. The amount supplemented depends
on the level of City Council support. For your reference, a typical day-long large-scale
NPO fundraising event at a City facility, the following example illustrates personnel and
resource costs incurred by the City:
EXAMPLE OF A LARGE-SCALE EVENT AT THE WILLEY CULTURAL CENTER
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE:
Foregoing Facility Reservation Fee at Group Rate $420
($35/hour x 12 hours - 8:00am to 8:00pm)
A Facility Attendant ($16.00/hour x 12 hours) $192
A Custodian to prep and clean the facility ($22/hour x 6 hours) $132
Cleaning materials (bought in bulk) $25
Total City Direct Cost = $769
INDIRECT COSTS INCLUDE:
Staff Time for Processing Reservations - Administrative (Recreation
Supervisor, Office Assistant, Special Event Committee members)
Building Wear and Tear – Building maintenance & repairs
Utility Usage - Electrical, Garbage & Water
Table 4, provides an example of the General Fund direct impact on the various levels of
10.C
Packet Pg. 595
NPO fundraising support:
Table 4
NPO Fundraising Events
Per Month
City Direct Cost Annual General
Fund Impact
1 time per month $769 $9,228
2 times per month $1,538 $18,456
3 times per month $2,307 $27,684
4 times per month $3,076 $36,912
PRIOR UTILIZATION OF NPO’S
For the past two fiscal years, NPO’s have reserved public facilities to facilitate
fundraising activities, agency workshops, program services or special events. Table 5
and 6 below is a summary of these efforts and the revenue amounts generated for
FY17 and FY18:
Table 5 - FY17 NPO
City
Building
# of NPO
Reservations
NPO
Revenue
Generated
# of Other
Reservations
Other
Revenue
Generated
Total
Rentals
Revenue
Generated
Wheeler 0 0 2 $348 2 $348
Senior
Center
4 $1,695 7 $5,978 11 $7,673
Willey
Cultural
Center
2 $939 8 $3,862 10 $4,801
Table 6 - FY18 NPO
City
Building
# of NPO
Reservations
NPO
Revenue
Generated
# of Other
Reservations
Other
Revenue
Generated
Total
Rentals
Revenue
Generated
Wheeler 2 $494 0 $0 2 $494
Senior
Center
0 $0 12 $8,043 12 $8,043
Willey
Cultural
1 $732 6 $2,289 7 $3,021
10.C
Packet Pg. 596
Center
ONE YEAR PILOT PROGRAM
Staff is proposing the approval of a one year pilot program to allow the licensing of
NPO’s utilizing public facilities one-time per year at the rate of $1 per reservation to
small local NPOs. The following criteria could be guidelines to administer the pilot
program:
The NPO’s must be a 501 (c) 3;
Be local in Gilroy, with their main operation being sited in Gilroy;
Facilitate services or programs within the Gilroy city limits;
Limit the $1 licensing fee to the Willey Cultural Center (which typically is the
location local NPOs prefer to hold their fundraising event) and,
Provide a direct benefit to the Gilroy community.
Licensing of facilities will be first come, first serve.
ONE TIME FACILITY USE
According to the City of Attorney, charging the reduced license fee would not be a
prohibited gift of public funds, since annual support of local NPO’s efforts will provide an
overall benefit to the Gilroy community. NPO’s specialize in the facilitation of programs
which meet the diverse social, cultural and economic needs of Gilroy residents. NPO’s
often times bridge the gaps with programs and resources which the City is not equipped
or trained to provide.
City staff will measure the pilot program and track the financial impact to the Recreation
Department. At the end of the one-year pilot program, staff will report to Council the
utilization and fiscal impact. Which time Council may consider three options: 1)
continue the program for another one-year; 2) instituting the program on a permanent
basis; or 3) discontinue the program due to fiscal impact – loss of facility rental income.
ALTERNATIVES
City Council can consider three alternatives:
1. NO CHANGES TO CURRENT POLICY - No change to the existing Public
Facility and Park Policies. NPO’s will continue to pay discounted rates for facility
reservations. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND
10.C
Packet Pg. 597
2. AMENDMENT TO CURRENT POLICY - Amend the current Park and Facility
Reservation Policy to allow local NPO’s to license public facilities one time a year
for a $1 fee for the purpose of hosting a fundraiser which benefits the Gilroy
community. For this alternative, attached is the amended draft narrative to be
incorporated in the existing Park and Facility Reservation Policy. STAFF DOES
NOT RECOMMEND
3. APPROVE ONE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM – Establish a one-year pilot program,
amending the current Park and Facility Reservation Policy to allow local NPO’s to
license a public facility one time for a $1 fee for the purpose of hosting a
fundraiser which benefits the Gilroy community. For this alternative, attached is
the amended draft narrative for the pilot program to be incorporated in t he
existing Park and Facility Reservation Policy. STAFF RECOMMENDS
Attachments:
1. FEE WAIVER AMENDMENT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT A
2. Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018
10.C
Packet Pg. 598
DRAFT
FEE REDUCTION AMENDMENT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT A
PURPOSE
The Recreation Department receives requests from Non-Profit Organization’s (NPO) to
reduce rental fees to $1 per reservation for City facilities for special events held on City
property. Recognizing the value of partnering with other organizations to provide
services benefiting the community, while still upholding its fiscal responsibilities, the
Recreation Department will support local NPO’s annual fundraising events by waiving
the facility rental fee.
POLICY
Eligibility for fee reduction includes:
1. Any charitable 501(c)3 NPO based within the City of Gilroy
a. IRS documentation of 501(c)3 non-profit status is required
2. Religious organizations with the required IRS status may apply if the proposed event
neither promotes religious messages nor advocates for or promotes religious beliefs.
3. An organization is eligible for a fee reduction only once within a 12 month period.
4. Fee reduction cannot exceed $1,000 in total in-kind value.
5. Facility reservation is based on availability. Any previously scheduled program,
event or paid reservation cannot be cancelled or moved to accommodate a new
request.
6. Reservation must begin and end on the same day; this includes set-up and clean-up.
7. Damage deposit is still required at the time of reservation and damage to the facility
during the event may result in loss of part or entire damage deposit.
INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
Activities which are ineligible for fee reductions include those which:
1. Enhance private businesses or general profit for business, even if some proceeds
are donated to non-profits.
2. Are held on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to any political candidate, ballot
measure or advocate a political situation.
3. Advocate or promote the sale or use of tobacco, controlled substances, firearms or
other weapons.
4. Promote hate, adult-orientated businesses or include pornography.
5. Solicit criminal activity.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: FEE WAIVER AMENDMENT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT A [Revision 5] (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-
ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY
1. Applications for fee reduction must be submitted at the time a facility is reserved and
must include all required information no less than 60 days in advance of the event.
Security deposits are required with all facility reservations and will be refunded if a
fee reduction application is denied.
2. Facility reservations for fee reduction shall be limited to the Willey Cultural Center.
3. The City reserves the right to access all activities at any time to ensure all rules,
regulations, conditions of use, City and health and safety laws are not violated. Fee
reductions can be revoked at any time, effective immediately, if the recipient agency
or organization fails to comply with this policy or any other local, State or Federal
regulation.
4. Applicants denied a fee reduction may deliver a written appeal for consideration by
the Recreation Department Director or their designee within one week of the denial,
along with the application for facility use, fee reduction, and any supporting
documentation. The decision then made by the Recreation Department Director shall
be final.
5. Staff shall provide annual reports to the City Manager regarding fee reductions
approved or implemented during the past fiscal year. The City Administrator will then
provide the report to City Council.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: FEE WAIVER AMENDMENT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT A [Revision 5] (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of a Proposed One-Year Pilot Program to Grant
Local Non-Profit Organizations Use of a Public Facility for a $1
Licensing Fee
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Recreation Department
Submitted By: Maria De Leon
Prepared By: Maria De Leon
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of a one-year pilot program to amend the Parks and Facility Reservation
Policy to allow local non-profit organizations to license public facilities one time a year
for a $1 fee for the purpose of hosting a fundraiser which benefits the Gilroy community.
BACKGROUND
At the June 18, 2018 City Council meeting, Council requested staff to review the current
City reservation policy for public facilities and conduct analysis of the feasibility to offer
local non-profit organizations the use of City facilities free of charge when holding a
fundraiser that benefits the Gilroy community. Examples of fundraising efforts include
the raising of funds for agency programs, services, youth scholarships and agency
grants.
The City of Gilroy has several public buildings and parks available for reservations for a
variety of functions throughout the year. The existing reservation policy lists fees for
user groups to rent public facilities. Based on a user group classification system, the
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
fees are broken into three categories: Free (City, GUSD & other governmental
agencies), Discounted (non-profit organizations & residents), or Market Rate (non-
residents & businesses).
The City of Gilroy provides a fee schedule to off-set the costs incurred by the usage
from facility users. The City reservation policies for public facilities and parks were
updated in collaboration with a committee made up of representatives from Public
Works, Parks, Facilities and Recreation programs in 2014. The policy established a
classification system. For a listing of users by groups, see Table 1:
Table 1
GROUP IDENTIFICATION & DEFINITON
A City Sponsored Programs
City and GUSD programs, activities and events
B Non-Profit Organizations
(Retreats, staff trainings, fundraisers)
C City of Gilroy Residents – Private Functions
(Baptisms, birthdays, reunions, weddings)
D Non-Residents or Commercial/Business
(Company picnics, annual retreats, trainings, concert
series)
Currently, only City, and the Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) reservations can use
a city-owned facility at no cost for programs, activities and special events.
Using the Willey Cultural Center as a facility reservation example, see Table 2.
Table 2
GROUP CLASSIFICATION WILLEY CULTURAL
CENTER
HOURLY RENTAL RATES
Deposit Hourly Fee
Group A N/A N/A
Group B $250 $35
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
Group C $250 $45
Group D $250 $55
When reserving the Gilroy Senior Center, Wheeler and the Willey Cultural Center, there
are additional fees incurred by the user such as a Facility Attendant ($16/hour) and/or
Custodian ($22/hour).
ANALYSIS
To learn about how other cities manage rental city-owned facilities for local non-profit
organizations, staff surveyed six municipalities in the region to look at their reservation
policies concerning non-profit organization (NPO) rental rates. Table 3 is the outcome
of staff’s inquiries:
Table 3
City
Existing
Facility
Reservation
Policy
Offer NPO
Discounted
Rates
Can NPO’s hold
fundraising
activities/events
in public
facilities
If yes, does
fee
decrease,
increase or
stay the
same?
For
fundraising
events, do
cities offer
NPO’s free
use of public
facilities?
Fremont Yes Yes Yes Stays the
Same
No
San Jose Yes Yes Yes Stays the
Same
No
Watsonville Yes Yes Yes Increases
50%
No
Morgan Hill Yes Yes Yes Stays the
Same
No
Campbell Yes Yes Yes Increases
(varied
amounts)
No
Milpitas Yes Yes Yes Stays the
same
No
Although all of the cities contacted offered a discounted rate of their facilities for NPO’s,
none of them offered a facility for free when a fundraising event was held. In fact, two
cities (Watsonville and Campbell) charged more when the event was a fundraiser as
opposed to a non-fundraising event.
CITY AND NPO PARTNERSHIP
The City of Gilroy recognizes local NPO’s as valuable community partners in delivering
a range of culturally appropriate and accessible services to the residents. According to
the Finance Department, there is 75 registered NPO’s based in Gilroy.
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
Similar to government agencies, NPO’s face economic challenges and at times, can
experience a decline in philanthropic support. These organizations depend on outside
contributions, grants and fundraising efforts. Modifying the existing Parks and Facility
Reservation Policy to allow local NPO’s use of a public facility at no-cost to support their
fundraising efforts can strengthen their relationship with the City. By providing a
financial subsidy in the form of a $1 fee facility rental, these organizations can maximize
their resources and reach Gilroy’s most vulnerable residents.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
For example if all 75 NPO’s become aware of this policy, a couple of issues arise; 1) the
availability of these facilities for public reservations will be impacted; and, 2) decrease of
facility rental income to the Recreation Department. However, the one-time use could
be limited to existing local NPO’s with a history of making financial contributions yet are
relatively small organizations with limited resources.
Staff has attempted to identify local NPO’s which are small organizations and conduct
fundraising activities that make positive contributions to the community. These NPOs,
include, but not limited to: Gilroy Arts Alliance, Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, Gilroy
Rotary, Gilroy Foundation, Latino Family Fund, Gilroy Downtown Business Association,
YMCA, CARAS, St. Joseph’s Family Center, Rebekah Children’s Services and Youth
Alliance.
The fiscal impacts to the General Fund will vary. The amount supplemented depends
on the level of City Council support. For your reference, a typical day-long large-scale
NPO fundraising event at a City facility, the following example illustrates personnel and
resource costs incurred by the City:
EXAMPLE OF A LARGE-SCALE EVENT AT THE WILLEY CULTURAL CENTER
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE:
• Foregoing Facility Reservation Fee at Group Rate $420
($35/hour x 12 hours - 8:00am to 8:00pm)
• A Facility Attendant ($16.00/hour x 12 hours) $192
• A Custodian to prep and clean the facility ($22/hour x 6 hours) $132
• Cleaning materials (bought in bulk) $25
Total City Direct Cost Approximately = $769
INDIRECT COSTS INCLUDE:
• Staff Time for Processing Reservations - Administrative (Recreation
Supervisor, Office Assistant, Special Event Committee members)
• Building Wear and Tear – Building maintenance & repairs
• Utility Usage - Electrical, Garbage & Water
Table 4, provides an example of the General Fund direct impact on the various levels of
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
NPO fundraising support:
Table 4
NPO Fundraising Events
Per Month
City Direct Cost Annual General
Fund Impact
1 time per month $769 $9,228
2 times per month $1,538 $18,456
3 times per month $2,307 $27,684
4 times per month $3,076 $36,912
PRIOR UTILIZATION OF NPO’S
For the past two fiscal years, NPO’s have reserved public facilities to facilitate
fundraising activities, agency workshops, program services or special events. Table 5
and 6 below is a summary of these efforts and the revenue amounts generated for
FY17 and FY18:
Table 5 - FY17 NPO
City
Building
# of NPO
Reservations
NPO
Revenue
Generated
# of Other
Reservations
Other
Revenue
Generated
Total
Rentals
Revenue
Generated
Wheeler 0 0 2 $348 2 $348
Senior
Center
4 $1,695 7 $5,978 11 $7,673
Willey
Cultural
Center
2 $939 8 $3,862 10 $4,801
Table 6 - FY18 NPO
City
Building
# of NPO
Reservations
NPO
Revenue
Generated
# of Other
Reservations
Other
Revenue
Generated
Total
Rentals
Revenue
Generated
Wheeler 2 $494 0 $0 2 $494
Senior
Center
0 $0 12 $8,043 12 $8,043
Willey
Cultural
Center
1 $732 6 $2,289 7 $3,021
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
ONE YEAR PILOT PROGRAM
Staff is proposing the approval of a one year pilot program to allow NPO’s utilization of
public facilities one-time per year at the rate of $1 per reservation to small local NPOs.
The following criteria could be guidelines to administer the pilot program:
• The NPO’s must be a 501 (c) 3;
• Be local in Gilroy, with their main operation being sited in Gilroy;
• Facilitate services or programs within the Gilroy city limits;
• Limit the $1 facility rental fee to the Willey Cultural Center (which typically is the
location local NPOs prefer to hold their fundraising event) and,
• Provide a direct benefit to the Gilroy community.
• Facility reservations will be first come, first serve.
ONE TIME FACILITY USE
According to the City of Attorney, charging the reduced license fee would not be a
prohibited gift of public funds, since annual support of local NPO’s efforts will provide an
overall benefit to the Gilroy community. NPO’s specialize in the facilitation of programs
which meet the diverse social, cultural and economic needs of Gilroy residents. NPO’s
often times bridge the gaps with programs and resources which the City is not equipped
or trained to provide.
City staff will measure the pilot program and track the financial impact to the Recreation
Department. At the end of the one-year pilot program, staff will report to Council the
utilization and fiscal impact. Which time Council may consider three options: 1)
continue the program for another one-year; 2) instituting the program on a permanent
basis; or 3) discontinue the program due to fiscal impact – loss of facility rental income.
ALTERNATIVES
City Council can consider three alternatives:
1. NO CHANGES TO CURRENT POLICY - No change to the existing Public
Facility and Park Policies which does not support the use of public facilities by
local NPO’s for fundraising efforts at $1 per reservation. NPO’s will continue to
pay discounted rates for facility reservations. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND
2. AMENDMENT TO CURRENT POLICY - Amend the current Park and Facility
Reservation Policy to allow local NPO’s to rent public facilities one time a year for
a $1 fee for the purpose of hosting a fundraiser which benefits the Gilroy
community. For this alternative, attached is the amended draft narrative to be
incorporated in the existing Park and Facility Reservation Policy. STAFF DOES
NOT RECOMMEND
3. APPROVE ONE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM – per attachment A which is an
amendment to current City policy. STAFF RECOMMENDS
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
Attachments:
1. FEE WAIVER AMENDMENT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT A
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
DRAFT
FEE REDUCTION AMENDMENT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT A
PURPOSE
The Recreation Department receives requests from Non-Profit Organization’s (NPO) to
license City facilities for $1 per fundraiser held on City property. Recognizing the value
of partnering with other organizations to provide services benefiting the community,
while still upholding its fiscal responsibilities, the Recreation Department will support
local NPO’s annual fundraising events by establishing a $1 licensing fee.
POLICY
This policy does not create any kind of limited or general public forum in the licensed
facility. The City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to accept or reject
any proposed event by any organization for the use of City facilities. The City is acting
solely in its capacity of an owner licensing the use of its facilities and not as a sponsor,
partner, or endorser of the organization or the event.
Eligibility for licensefee reduction includes:
1. Any charitable 501(c)3 NPO based within the City of Gilroy
a. IRS documentation of 501(c)3 non-profit status is required
2. Religious organizations with the required IRS status may apply if the proposed event
neither promotes religious messages nor advocates for or promotes religious beliefs.
3. An organization is eligible for a $1 license fee fee reduction only once within a 12
month period.
4. The direct cost of licensing the facility Fee reduction cannot exceed $1,000 in total
in-kind value.
5. Facility licensing opportunitiesreservation areis based on availability. Any previously
scheduled program, event or paid reservation cannot be cancelled or moved to
accommodate a new request.
6. The use of the facility must begin and end on the same day; this includes set-up and
clean-up.
7. Damage deposit is still required at the time of reservation and damage to the facility
during the event may result in loss of part or entire damage deposit.
INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
Activities which are ineligible for fee reductions include those which:
1. Enhance private businesses or general for-profit for business, even if some proceeds
are donated to non-profits.
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)
2. Are held on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to any political candidate, ballot
measure or advocate a political position.
3. Advocate or promote the sale or use of tobacco, cannabis, controlled substances,
firearms or other weapons.
4. Promote hate, adult-orientated businesses or include pornography.
5. Solicit criminal activity.
ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY
1. Applications for licensing the facilityfee reduction must be submitted at the time of
reservationa andfacility is reserved and must include all required information no less
than 60 days in advance of the event. Security deposits are required with all facility
reservations and will be refunded if a licensing fee reduction application is denied.
2. A license to use the facility for $1 shall be limited to the Willey Cultural Center.
3. The City reserves the right to access all activities at any time to ensure all rules,
regulations, conditions of use, City and health and safety laws are not violated. The
licenseFee reductions can be revoked at any time, effective immediately, if the recipient
agency or organization fails to comply with this policy or any other local, State or Federal
ordinance, law, policy, or regulation.
4. Applicants denied a license to use the facility for $1 may deliver a written appeal for
consideration by the Recreation Department Director or their designee within one week
of the denial, along with the application for facility use and any supporting
documentation. The decision then made by the Recreation Department Director shall be
final.
5. Staff shall provide annual reports regarding the policy to the City Administrator during
the past fiscal year. The City Administrator will then provide the report to City Council.
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Revised Staff Report dated November 5, 2018 (1805 : Proposed Facility Use Fee Schedule for Local Non-Profit Organizations)