Gilroy City Council
February 28, 2022

February 24, 2022 8:46 AM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR Marie Blankley

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rebeca Armendariz
Dion Bracco
Zach Hilton
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Carol Marques
Fred Tovar

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA

CITY OF GILROY

VIRTUAL MEETING
VIA
ZOOM
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022

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

THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361. MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org .

Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361, a local legislative body is authorized to hold public meetings remotely and to make those meetings accessible to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body by remote means only via a technology solution.

As such, the City will provide various options for the public to participate in the conduct of the meeting, as indicated in detail below on this cover sheet.

In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the City will be offering online conferencing via Zoom, Facebook Live, and telephone for the public to view or listen to this meeting. Written comments can be submitted by email to Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk, at [email protected].

Please note that written comments will not be read out loud, but it will be part of the written record.

To Participate via Zoom: To View the Meeting Live on Facebook:

Weblink: https://bit.ly/34QlvOU

Or via Telephone: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 854 7499 5240
Passcode: 857408

Weblink:
https://www.facebook.com/CityofGilroy

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.

The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda.

Written comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
02/28/2022 Page2 public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written comments are also available on the City’s Public Records Portal at https://bit.ly/3G1vihU .

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Assembly Bill 361, 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.

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 with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

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

The agenda for this regular meeting is as follows:

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order

1. Pledge of Allegiance

2. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda

3. Roll Call

1.2. Orders of the Day

1.3. Employee Introductions

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
02/28/2022 Page3 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS

2.1. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations

2.1.1. Proclamation: Proclaiming March as Youth Arts Month

2.1.2. Proclamation: Proclaiming March as Red Cross Month

2.1.3. Proclamation: Retirement of James Trujillo

3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

3.1. Presentation from Gilroy Garlic Festival Association, Inc.

3.2. 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 within the Gilroy City Council’s jurisdiction but not on the agenda.

Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances and handed to the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to 1 minute each. The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the 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 comments to address the Council on matters not on this a genda may be e- mailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020.

Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1:00pm on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda pack et located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the City Council as so on as practicable. Written material provided by public members under t his section of the agenda will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
02/28/2022 Page4 4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Santa Clara Co.

Library JPA, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, Street Naming Committee

Council Member Armendariz – ABAG (Alternate), CalTrain Policy Group, Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board (alternate), Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, Santa Clara Co. Library JPA (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, Silicon Valley Clea n Energy Authority JPA Board (Alternate), Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility (Alternate)

Council Member Marques - Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board, Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee, Historic Heritage Committee (Alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, South County Regional Wastewater Authority (Alternate)

Council Member Hilton – Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County United for Health, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board

Council Member Tovar – Economic Development Corporation Board, Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee, Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission, Santa Clara Co.

Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board, SCVWD Water Commission (alternate), South County Joint Recycled Water Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, Street Naming Committee, South Coun ty Youth Task Force Policy Team (alternate), VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility

Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors, Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Youth Task Force, SCVWD Water Commission, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA South County City Group (alternate), VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate)

Mayor Blankley - Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Gilroy Sister Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Joint Recycled Water Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, VTA Board of Directors Alternate, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, VTA South County City Group

5. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
02/28/2022 Page5 6. 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 separ ate 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 t ime the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears.

6.1. Action Minutes for February 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting

6.2. Action Minutes for February 15, 2022 City Council Special Meeting

6.3. Adoption of the Revised Gilroy City Council Norms

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

7.1. There are none listed.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.1. Tentative Map and Architectural & Site Review Permit for 4-lot Subdivision at 395 Lewis Street

1. Staff Report: Cindy McCormick, Customer Service Manager

2. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications

3. Open Public Hearing

4. Close Public Hearing

5. Possible Action:
a. Adopt a Resolution approving a Tentative Map to Subdivide the property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) into four parcels (File Number TM 20-01).

b. Adopt a Resolution approving an Architectural and Site Review Permit to allow construction of four (4) two-story single-family homes on property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) following approval of Tentative Map File Number TM 20-01 to subdivide the property into four (4) single family parcels (File Number AS 20-02).

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There are none listed.

10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

10.1. Introduction Of An Ordinance To Mandate Electronic And Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements

1. Staff Report: Thai Pham, City Clerk

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Staff recommends to waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance to mandate electronic and paperless filing of Fair Political Practices Commission campaign disclosure statements and statements of economic interest.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
02/28/2022 Page6 10.2. Social Media Use Policy

1. Staff Report: Rachelle Bedell, Community Engagement Coordinator

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Staff recommends approval and adoption of the Social Media Use Policy.

10.3. Council Discussion of Housing Trust Fund Fiscal Recommendations and Adopt a Resolution Amending the Operating Budget for Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 in the Los Arroyos Fund in the Amount of $100,800 in Each Fiscal Year.

1. Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Senior Management Analyst

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Council:
a) Receive the report and provide direction, and

b) Adopt a resolution amending the operating budget for Fiscal Years 2021 -22 and 2022-23 in the Los Arroyos Fund in the amount of $100,800 in each fiscal year.

10.4. Council Discussion Regarding a Potential Policy for Receiving Donations for Display at City Facilities

1. Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Senior Management Analyst

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Council discussion and provide direction.

11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

11.1. Catalytic Converter Theft. (Captain Jason Smith)

11.2. Update on In-Person City Council / Board / Commission Meetings in March

12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

13. CLOSED SESSION

14. ADJOURNMENT

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
02/28/2022 Page7 FUTURE MEETING DATES

MARCH 2022
7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

APRIL 2022
4* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
18* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

MAY 2022
2* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
16* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

*meeting is webstreamed and televised.

2.1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Proclamation: Proclaiming March as Youth Arts Month (Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations)

2.1.2 Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Proclamation: Proclaiming March as Red Cross Month (Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations)

gfet94/49ZatiOP/ide Cay 9" died,
w`i-iei efl§
wtteRefi§
wile .e
W`Hei e
Javues ")L &" Trujillo has sewed the ctj of 4Lroj for overthirtu-owe uears as a Maivttevt.awce worker HH in the Public works Department, operations Aivision retiring of anuaru 5, 2022; awd
h&j/AA/CS service as a Maintenance worker (t in Public Works, he has been. assigned to the Park . Landscape, .street/wastewater/Forestru, and water sections where he maintained critical infrastructure throughout the ctu; and
Jiv& brought both pride and passion, for his hometown comvu,uwitu when performing his work. H-e applied his skills and education to protect and maintain public facilities such as parks, streets, water sustem, wastewatersjstent, golf course, and trails; and
Jive, provided excellent customer service to the residents and visitors of 4Lroj and aLso volunteered in. the com.wt.unitu with the 4LLrou Little League and 4iLroj Browns Football programs; and
Jive, accomplished w4.011A.0 special projects during his tenure to include the Christmas H-iLL Park operations manual, ChrLstmas H-iLL Park fire camp set-up manual, and assisting with the training of vu.anu new ewcpLouees; and
wi-ieRequ Jiv.. has been a reliable and valuable evupLojee of the ctu of 4iLroj, demonstrating excellence in teamwork, collaboration and customer service, while wt.aintaiwivl,g a good nature and deLivering positive results for the residents of c Lro j.

NOW, Tfihe ,e?'OR.e, I, mfriziC BifiNKLey, MaJorof the ctj of 4 Lrou, and aLong with mu colleagues on the c tj Council and all the citizens and ewcpLo j ees of 4Lro j, join. in. thanking
tfa/ineg Xyzio,
For his commitvu.ewt of service and wish hivit well in retireva.ewt for uears to come.

Ma rie gla wk,leu
Mot or,ctuof4LLroj

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2022

1. OPENING

1.1 Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Marie Blankley.

1. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Tovar led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Invocation
There was none.

3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Pham declared the posting of the agenda.

Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Mayor Remote
Rebeca Armendáriz Council Member Remote
Dion Bracco Council Member Remote
Zach Hilton Council Member Remote
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Vice Mayor Remote
Carol Marques Council Member Remote
Fred Tovar Council Member Remote

2. Orders of the Day
There were none.

3. Employee Introductions
There were none.

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS

2.1. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
There were none.

3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

3.1 State Senator John Laird
California State Senator Laird provided a status update on legislative matters and responded to Council Members questions.

6.1 Packet Pg. 11 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022

3.2 PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

City Clerk Pham reported one written comment was received Mercedes Chun wrote about the apartments being built on the corner of Santa Teresa and Highway 152.

There were no audio comments.

There being no public comment, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco reported on Santa Clara County Library JPA meeting.

Council Member Armendáriz had nothing to report.

Council Member Marques reported on Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board meeting.

Council Member Hilton reported on Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board.

Council Member Tovar reported on the delay of the Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee meeting.

Council Member Leroe-Muñoz reported on SCVWD Water Commission meeting.

Mayor Blankley reported on SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee and announced the City Council Special Retreat Meeting scheduled for February 15th.

5. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Vice Mayor Leroe-Muñoz requested an ordinance to ban the use of plywood covering windows and doors at vacant properties in Downto wn Gilroy from 1st through 10th Street. The item received unanimous support.

Council Member Tovar reminded City Administrator Forbis about his request to have an update from the Garlic Festival Association.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
Council Member Marques requested to pull Agenda Item 6.2 from the Consent Calendar.

6.1 Action Minutes for January 24, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting A motion was made by Council Member Leroe-Muñoz, seconded by Council Member Marques, to approve the minutes. The motion was carried by the following vote:

6.1 Packet Pg. 12 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Leroe-Muñoz, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar

6.2 Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Gilroy Making Required Findings To Allow The Continuation Of Remotely Held Meetings Of The City Council and all Boards and Commissions Pursuant To Section 54953 of the Brown Act
Council discussion ensued between the members about the item.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no public comment, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

A motion was made by Council Member Leroe-Muñoz, seconded by Council Member Tovar, to adopt the resolution. The motion was carried by the following vote:

RESULT: APPROVE [5 to 2]
MOVER: Leroe-Muñoz, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar
NAYES: Bracco, Marques

Enactment No: Resolution No. 2022-07

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

7.1. Approval of an Agreement with Park Consulting Group for a Not to Exceed Amount of $284,000 for EnerGov LMS Professional Services Customer Service Manager McCormick gave staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no further comments, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

6.1 Packet Pg. 13 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022
Possible Action:

Approve a professional services agreement with Park Consulting Group for a not to exceed amount of $284,000 to complete implementation of the EnerGov LMS Project, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement.

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Carol Marques, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Vice Mayor
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar

7.2. Award of Contract to Swimming Swan LLC in the Amount of $358,750.00 to Serve as the Christopher High School Aquatics Center Operator in 2022 and 2023 (Project No. 22-RFP-AD-463).

Recreation Manager Henig and President Melissa Swanson of Swimming Swan LLC gave staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

City Clerk Pham reported that two written commen ts were provided by Mary Yates and Adrienne Rodriguez.

The following speakers spoke in support of the item:

Cat Tucker
Kristin Brown
Theresa Graham

Mak Gupta was concerned about the liability issue and requested Council not to rush into passing the item. Human Resources Director McPhillips briefly responded to the speaker’s concern.

There being no further comments, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

Possible Action:

Award contract to Swimming Swan LLC in the amount of $358,750.00 to serve as the Christopher High School Aquatics Center Operator in 2022 and 2023 (Project No. 22-RFP-AD-463) and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Rebeca Armendáriz, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No Public Hearings listed.

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

6.1 Packet Pg. 14 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022

9.1. Annual Appointments to City Boards, Commissions and Committees With Seats Vacant or Expired as of December 31, 2021
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no further comments, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

Possible Action:

Appoint members to Boards, Commissions and Committees with seats vacant or expired as of December 31, 2021.

The following appointments were made by Council:

Arts and Culture Commission
Camille McCormack (Term Expires 12/31/2025)
Carmine DePaulo (Term Expires 12/31/2024)
Frank Patterson (Term Expires 12/31/2025)
Alexandra Perdew (Term Expires 12/31/2025)

Library Commission
Saeid Nooshabadi (Term Expires 12/31/2025)

Open Government Commission
None

Parks & Recreation Commission
Eric Arredondo (Term Expires 12/31/2025)

Personnel Commission
Marissa Haro (Term Expires 12/31/2025)
Nita Edde-Mitchell (Term Expires 12/31/2025)

Planning Commission
Annedore Kushner (Term Expires 12/31/2025)
Adriana Leongardt (Term Expires 12/31/2025)

10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

10.1 Consent of the Appointment of Jon Biggs as Interim Community Development Director (Retired Annuitant) effective February 8, 2022 and Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the Exception to the 180-Day Wait Period for Jon Biggs and Approving the Interim Appointment and Employment Agreement Pursuant to California Government Code 21221(h)
Human Resources Director McPhillips gave staff presentation and introduced Mr.

Jon Biggs to Council. Both responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no further comments, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

6.1 Packet Pg. 15 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022
Possible Action:
a) Consent of the City Administrator's recommendation to appoint Jon Biggs as Interim Community Development Director (as a retired annuitant) effective February 8, 2022.

A motion was made by Council Member Tovar, seconded by Council Member Hilton, to approve the Consent of the City Administrator’s recommendation to appoint Jon Biggs as Interim Community Development Director (as a retired annuitant) effective February 8, 2022. The motion was carried by the following vote:

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Zach Hilton, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar
b) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the exception to the CalPERS 180-day wait period for the appointment of Jon Biggs (retired annuitant), consenting the City Administrator's recommendation to appoint Jon Biggs as Interim Community Development Director (Retired Annuitant) pursuant to California Government Code Section 21221(h), and authorizing the City Administrator to execute the employment agreement.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Leroe-Muñoz, seconded by Council Member Marques, to adopt the resolution. The motion was carried by the following vote:

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar

Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2022-08

10.2. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Rescinding Resolution No. 2021-17 and Adopting the Amended and Restated Flying Flags at City Facilities Policy
City Administrator Forbis gave staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

City Clerk Pham reported that three individuals provided written comments prior to the City Council meeting with regards to the item.

Cat Tucker spoke in favor of this item but suggested to have the flags displayed at the Paseo in Downtown Gilroy.

6.1 Packet Pg. 16 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022
Kim Sullivan reiterated to Council that the only flags that should be flown at City Hall is the City, State, and Federal flag as it is inclusive of all genders, ethnic groups, and religions. She also voiced that the Council would show favoritism if Pride flag was flown in exclusion of the new flag policy.

Eric Howard questioned if it is the City’s role to fly flags of every organization and is concerned that this item will turn political.

There being no further comments, Mayor Blankley closed public co mment.

A motion was made by Mayor Blankley, seconded by Vice Mayor Leroe-Muñoz, to adopt the resolution and make the amendments to the policy:

• For continuing applications, the requirement for 150 signatures will apply every other year.
• The Pride Flag is grandfathered in for 2022 but will follow the process of collecting signatures and application in the next cycle. • The applicant shall supply the flags to City Staff.
• The flags are only to be displayed at City Hall.

The motion was carried by the following vote:

RESULT: APPROVE AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Marie Blankley, Mayor
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Vice Mayor
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar

Enactment No.: Resolution No: 2022-09

10.3 Resolution to Approve 4-hour Limited-Term Parking at San Ysidro Park City Engineer Heap gave staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Jorge Mendoza thanked Council for looking at the issue and is in support of the item.

There being no further comments, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

Possible Action:

Approval of a Resolution to Approve 4-hour Limited-Term Parking Along the Murray Avenue and Lewis Street Frontage of San Ysidro Park RESULT: APPROVE
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Rebeca Armendáriz, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar

Enactment No.: Resolution No.: 2022-10

6.1 Packet Pg. 17 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2022

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
02/7/2022

11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

11.1 Citywide Fiber Optic Project Update
City Administrator Forbis and Public Works Director Jordan provided an update on the item and responded to Council Member questions.

12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
None provided.

13. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Blankley adjourned Regular Meeting to Closed Session at 9:05 p.m.

The City Council convened in Closed Session at 9:10 p.m.

The Council vote to stay in closed session was unanimous.

13.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to GC Sec. 54956.8 and GC Sec.17A.8 (a) (2)

13.1.1. Property: Gilroy Sports Park, 5925 Monterey Frontage Road (APN’s 808-221-026, -028, and -030)

Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator

Other Party to Negotiations: Sharks Sports and
Entertainment, LLC

Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Lease

No reportable action.

13.1.2. Properties: 10th Street Bridge: APNs 808- 19-007, 799-30- 006, 799-30-007, 808-19-020, 808-50-999, Thomas Luchessa Bridge: APNs 808-21-025, 808-21-023, 808-21-021, 808-21- 018, New Fire Station: APNs 808-18-003, 808-19-029
Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator;
Other Party to Negotiations: Glen Loma Corporation, John M. Filice, Jr.;
Negotiating Price and terms of payment regarding
purchase, sale
No reportable action.

14. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 P.M.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.

/s/ Thai Pham, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk

6.1 Packet Pg. 18 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 7, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Special Meeting - Council Retreat Minutes
02/15/2022 City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022

1. OPENING

1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Marie Blankley.

1. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Hilton led the pledge of allegiance.

2. Invocation
There was none.

3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Pham declared the posting of the agenda.

Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Mayor Present
Rebeca Armendáriz Council Member Present
Dion Bracco Council Member Present
Zach Hilton Council Member Present
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Vice Mayor Present
Carol Marques Council Member Present
Fred Tovar Council Member Present

2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
Mayor Blankley opened public comment period.

Joanne Fierro voiced her concern that Council is limiting the amount of input from speakers at City Council meetings and requested to do hybrid meetings for the public to participate.

There being no further speakers, the Mayor closed Public Comment.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1. Interactive Discussion Regarding Roles, Responsibilities and Obligations of Councilmembers to Ensure that the Peoples’ Business is Conducted Openly and Transparently
Mayor Blankley gave a short introduction prior to City Attorney Faber's staff presentation. City Attorney Faber responded to Council Member questions.

6.2 Packet Pg. 19 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 15, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City Council Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022

City Council Meeting Minutes
02/15/2022
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Ron Kirkish inquired about a hypothetical scenario would constitute a Brown Act violation. City Attorney Faber responded to the speaker’s inquiry.

Maria Aguilar inquired about if there was a distinction between the Mayor and Council Members within the Council Norms document. Mayor Blankley responded to the speaker’s inquiry.

There being no further public speakers, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

3.2. Review of Council Norms adopted Jan. 25, 2021 and Consideration of Revisions to Council Norms
Mayor Pro Tempore Leroe-Muñoz and Mayor Blankley provided a short introduction about the item.

The Council went through the Gilroy City Council Norms document. Discussion ensued between them with regards to the changes in the language of the document. Revisions to the language were later accepted by the majority.

Mayor Blankley opened public comment.

Rebecca Scheel inquired about serial meetings, requested Council to reflect upon themselves about their demeanor during council meetings , and requested Council to follow their own rules for the sake of transparency. Mayor Blankley and City Attorney Faber briefly responded to her public comment.

There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

Possible Action:

Adopt revisions to Council Norms or direct staff to propose revisions for later adoption.

4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 PM.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.

/s/ Thai Pham, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk

6.2 Packet Pg. 20 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 15, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Adoption of the Revised Gilroy City Council Norms Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Thai Pham
Prepared By: Thai Pham
Marie Blankley

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the revised Gilroy City Council Norms

BACKGROUND
The Gilroy City Council has established protocols and procedures in order to conduct Council business in the most effective and transparent manner possible. Originally adopted in 1999 as Council Norms, the City Council reviews the document each year and last formally revised and re-adopted the protocols as “Gilroy City Council Norms” in January 25, 2021. The Gilroy City Council Norms outlines procedures for:
• Council Meetings
• Adding Agenda Items
• Council Interactions
• Staff Relations
• Council Communications

6.3 Packet Pg. 21

• Council Travel and Training / Participation in Outside Boards and Memberships

ANALYSIS
The Council reviewed and considered updates to the “Gilroy City Council Norms” document at the February 15, 2022 special meeting and made several modifications.

CONCLUSION
The revised “Gilroy City Council Norms” is now before City Council for re-adoption with modifications from the 2021 version.

Attachments:

1. Gilroy City Council Norms - Revised 02/15/2022

6.3 Packet Pg. 22

Gilroy City Council Norms

1. Meetings Guidelines:

1.1. Three (3) minutes per public comment per agenda item. Five (5) minutes for applicants, with two (2) minute rebuttal for applicant. City Clerk will provide a timer. Staff will make every effort to limit staff reports to five (5) minutes, with opportunity for staff to elaborate based on Council questions. While the Mayor has the discretion to uniformly adjust speaking time, it is the goal of the Council to identify at the beginning of the public comment period the number of speakers present and to set the following time limits per speaker applicable to items on or off the agenda, keeping in mind that public comments may also be submitted in writing (see Norm #24): Up to ten (10) speakers, three (3) minutes each; eleven to twenty (11-20) speakers, two (2) minutes each; over twenty (20) speakers, one (1) minute each.

1.2. Council is encouraged to email questions to staff prior to the meeting. This promotes clear, available and concise answers.

1.3. Prepare for meetings by reading meeting materials in advance.

1.4. Reveal information gained from contacts.

1.5. Stay focused on the present agenda item.

1.6. Council reports and presentations should be concise and efficient, with a goal of limiting presentation to three (3) minutes. Council reports are to be focused on the boards on which a Council Member sits. Only designated Council representatives shall report the action of any board.

1.7. Follow Robert’s Rules of Order.

1.8. Start all meetings on time.

1.9. Direct questions on the agenda to the City Administrator or the Mayor.

1.10. Public inquiries at meetings will be responded to as directed by the Mayor.

1.11. When meeting with citizens and receiving information, Council should ask if staff has received and analyzed the new information.

1.12. When a Regular City Council meeting falls on a holiday, that meeting will be moved to the following Monday, with the exception of the single meeting in July which shall be held on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

1.13. A single meeting will be held in the month of July.

1.14. Council Members are encouraged to attend all meetings of the Council and to set the same attendance example expected of those appointed by the Council to Boards and Commissions. If a Council Member is unable to attend a Council meeting, they will notify the Mayor or the City Administrator as soon as reasonably practicable.

1.15. If a Council Member abstains on an item, the Council Member must explain the reason for the abstention.

1.16. External communication by Council Members during meetings (whether through cell phones, laptops, or other devices) creates the perception that private communications are influencing the outcome of decisions. This contradicts Gilroy’s Open Government Ordinance. If a Council Member must engage in external communication for personal purposes, the Council Member should excuse themself from the meeting.

1.17. Council Members should not view or interact with social media during meetings.

1.18. During City Council meetings, the Mayor will summarize the thumbs up/down direction given for the record.

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Gilroy City Council Norms - Revised 02/15/2022 (3672 : Revised Council Norms)

Revisions Approved: February 15, 2022
Adopted as Council Norms: _________, 2022

1.19. Meetings will end at 11:00 p.m. unless a majority of Council Members present vote to extend the meeting.

1.20. Action style minutes will be taken by the City Clerk for all City Council meetings.

1.21. Notes will be taken for all City Council study sessions and workshops.

1.22. No motion should be made until Public Comment has been closed and Council has had an opportunity to deliberate on the item.

1.23. Council Members must be in the queue prior to making a motion on an item.

1.24. Written material provided by public members for Council agenda item “public comment on items not on the agenda” will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of electronic material may be provided.

1.25. Meetings will be held or adjourned in the name of or in memory of a person only if that person has accomplishments specific to Gilroy.

2. Adding Agenda Items:

2.1. Any Council Member may propose an item for consideration as an agenda item for a future meeting by oral request during the portion of the Council meeting designated for Future Council Initiated Agenda Items. The Council will decide whether to agendize the item for a future Council meeting.

3. Council Interactions:

3.1. Show respect for differences and community.

3.2. Respect the Open Government process and the majority vote of the Council. Open Government is about the process, not the outcome.

3.3. Avoid negative non-verbal, judgmental stances, and personal attacks.

3.4. Exercise respect for Council Members, staff, and the public.

3.5. Minimize redundancy.

3.6. Listen attentively.

3.7. Confirm information presented as a rumor.

3.8. Keep a positive tone and body language.

3.9. Follow the Brown Act, including social media communications restrictions.

3.10. Give personal feedback to staff and Council Members privately.

3.11. All quasi-judicial ex parte communications (as defined by Council Policy) or conflict of interests will be disclosed by each Council Member.

3.12. To respect the independence of our commissions, no Council Member may attempt to influence any commission or regularly attend commission meetings, except with respect to a matter that affects the Council Member individually. Regular attendance may be seen as intimidating or an attempt to use “command influence” even when such is not the Council Member’s intent. However, Council Members are encouraged to watch recorded Commission meetings.

3.13. If any Council Member chooses to speak before or to submit written comment to another elected body or Board of elected officials on any item for which they are not a Council- appointed representative or for which they are not speaking from an official position of the Council, such Council Member shall state that they are communicating as an individual constituent only and shall not reference “Gilroy City Council” or “City

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Gilroy City Council Norms - Revised 02/15/2022 (3672 : Revised Council Norms)

Revisions Approved: February 15, 2022
Adopted as Council Norms: _________, 2022

Council Member” in any written or verbal communications except to identi fy themself.

Council Members shall be mindful that no matter how many hats they may wear, they are still perceived by the public as a Council Member.

4. Staff Relations:

4.1. Council Members should be aware that staff responses to an individual Council Member’s questions may be forwarded to the entire Council.

4.2. Direct questions to the City Administrator and Department Heads. Project -related questions may be directed to the staff person working to the project. Responses may also be sent to all City Council Members.

4.3. City Attorney – maximum of one (1) hour of research for individual issues. If more time is needed, the majority of the Council must approve this extra time.

4.4. Forward any information to the City Administrator as necessary. Do not surprise the City Administrator or City Council with last-minute information.

4.5. The Council’s focus is policy. The staff focuses on professional execution and technical knowledge. Council Members shall not provide their own individual technical comments to City partners or other agencies (e.g. VTA, LAFCO, HSR, etc.), unless speaking solely as an individual constituent and not as a Council Member.

4.6. Show respect to staff.

4.7. Give as much lead-time as possible.

4.8. The City Clerk will attend all study sessions and workshops of the City Council.

4.9. Council Members, including the Mayor, do not have their own city staff. Council Members wishing to solicit their own volunteers should represent to the public that all oversight and decisions regarding such volunteer positions are at the sole discretion of that Council Member alone.

4.10. Council Members should not contact staff directly to attend or otherwise engage in events or causes of individual Council Members without the express permission of the City Administrator.

5. Council Communications:

5.1. Be mindful of each other’s diversity.

5.2. Be supportive and positive with each other.

5.3. When sitting as a representative of the City on another body, represent the City’s position and seek Council input as necessary by request of future agenda item or asking the Mayor to agendize same.

5.4. Requests for proclamations should be addressed to the Mayor and the City Clerk.

5.5. Task Forces

5.5.1. At the initial meeting, Council Member will be present and explain the Task Force’s goals and objectives. The Council Member will also explain that they are a recommendation body and the Council may revise their final actions.

5.5.2. Staff will create a boiler plate document which will have the place for the goals and objectives of the Task Force, the norms of the group, and any other information Council and Staff feel is important.

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Gilroy City Council Norms - Revised 02/15/2022 (3672 : Revised Council Norms)

Revisions Approved: February 15, 2022
Adopted as Council Norms: _________, 2022

5.6. Press Corrections

5.6.1. If City Council sees first, communicate to the City Administrator. The City Administrator will then have staff issue a correction.

5.7. When a Council Member endorses a person/position/issue/etc. separate from a position endorsed by a vote of the City Council, it is a personal endorsement, and not a City endorsement. Any reference or use of the name “Gilroy City Council” in association with the individual should be changed to “Gilroy City Council Member”. If a Council Member wishes a City of Gilroy endorsement, they may request to place the issue on a future agenda. The Council will then decide whether to take action or not.

5.8. When a Council Member is identified as spokesperson, then only they speak on behalf of the City Council.

5.9. Legal communications should go through the Mayor or their designee, following legal review.

5.10. Emergency communications shall follow the Council Emergency Communication document adopted in 2020.

5.11. No Council Member shall communicate in a manner that appears to come from the City or city staff or the City Council, or in a manner that suggests a position associated with the City or with the knowledge of the City Council.

5.12. Council Member elected offices are nonpartisan. No Council Member shall refer to their city council elected position as being associated with a political party.

5.13. Repeated or serious violation of these norms can be addressed by the Council by censure of a Council Member, following notice and an opportunity to be heard. This document formally authorizes the censure remedy to the City Council and allows for the basic due process protections of notice and hearing.

6. Council Travel and Training / Participation on Outside Boards and Memberships:

6.1. Council Members will check with the full Council via request under Future Council Initiated Items when they wish to go to meetings outside “normal” (e.g., League, assigned outside organization meetings) travel and training and wish the City to pay for it, such as specialized training and/or meetings of participation groups. If approved for a future agenda, Council Members will submit a short, written explanation of the request to the city clerk prior to publication of the preliminary agenda.

6.2. If a Council Member wishes to apply to participate in an outside government organization that is not part of the current City Council Advisory Committees & Representatives list, the Council Member will let Council know through a future agenda item request. If approved, the Council Member will submit a short, written explanation of the request to the city clerk prior to publication of the preliminary agenda.

6.3. If the primary Council representative to an organization cannot attend, they will contact the alternate.

6.4. The alternate Council representative can attend the outside organization meeting, even if the primary is there, to gain experience and knowledge.

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Gilroy City Council Norms - Revised 02/15/2022 (3672 : Revised Council Norms)

Revisions Approved: February 15, 2022
Adopted as Council Norms: _________, 2022

6.5. If a Council Member must cancel a hotel reservation/registration, or the like, the Council Member will pay all costs associated with that cancellation. The City Clerk will give Council Members the cancellation policy of the event/hotel/etc. in advance if possible.

6.6. Any payment for travel and meeting expenses of a Council Member, or reimbursement thereof, shall be in accordance with the City of Gilroy Travel and Meeting Expense Policy, last revised on 3/2/2020.

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Gilroy City Council Norms - Revised 02/15/2022 (3672 : Revised Council Norms)

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Tentative Map and Architectural & Site Review Permit for 4 -lot Subdivision at 395 Lewis Street
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
a. Adopt a Resolution approving a Tentative Map to Subdivide the property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) into four parcels (File Number TM 20-01).

b. Adopt a Resolution approving an Architectural and Site Review Permit to allow construction of four (4) two-story single-family homes on property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) following approval of Tentative Map File Number TM 20-01 to subdivide the property into four (4) single family parcels (File Number AS 20-02).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to subdivide an existing vacant parcel into four (4) single -family lots, where each new lot would be developed with a two -story single-family home and three of the lots would each be developed with a detached accessory dwelling unit

8.1 Packet Pg. 28

(ADU). The proposal requires City Council approval of a tentative (parcel) map and is being concurrently reviewed for approval of an architectural and site review permit.

POLICY DISCUSSION
The proposed project requires tentative map approval by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and Architectural and Site Review Permit approval by the Community Development Director or designee. Staff has processed both entitlements concurrently since the Architectural and Site Review Permit approval is contingent on approval of the Tentative (parcel) Map.

BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Recommendation: On January 20, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and unanimously recommended approval of both the Tentative Map and the Architectural and Site Review Permit (Attachments 6 and 7).

Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the attached environmental checklist, the project has been deemed statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning). The project has also been deemed categorically exempt, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions).

ANALYSIS:

Project Description: The proposed parcel map would subdivide an existing vacant

1.05-acre (45,816 square feet) lot into four (4) single -family residential lots (Attachment 2). As illustrated in the architectural plans (Attachment 3), each new lot would be developed with a two-story single-family home and three of the lots would each be developed with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Lots 1, 2, and 3 would each be 8,363 square feet in area, while Lot 4 would be 12,155 square feet in area. The project would install frontage improvements (e.g., sidewalk, curb, and gutter) and dedicate street right-of-way to widen Chestnut Street by approximately 21.5 feet. The net project site area, after deducting the right of way dedication, totals 37,245 square feet. The project site is bounded by Lewis Street to the south, Chestnut Street to the east, and Upper Miller Slough to the west. The project s ite is surrounded by residential uses. San Ysidro City Park is located approximately 700 feet east of the project site (Attachment 1).

General Plan Consistency: The 2040 General Plan land use designation of the site is Low Density Residential. The project would result in a residential density of approximately four (4) dwelling units per acre (du/a), consistent with the allowed density of 3-8 du/a. The proposed 4-lot subdivision, site layout, and architectural design is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, as discussed in the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission Staff report (Attachment 5).

8.1 Packet Pg. 29

Tentative Map Analysis: Residential subdivisions must comply with the Gilroy City Code (GCC), including but not limited to Chapter 21, Subdivisions and Land Development. The project is consistent with City Code and meets the findings for approval as discussed in the Planning Commission Staff report. Appropriate conditions of approval have been prepared in conformance with City Code and are included in th e Council Resolution (TM 20-01, Attachment 8).

Architectural and Site Permit Analysis: Architectural and site review permit approval is required pursuant to GCC Section 30.50.41(a). The application is consistent with City Code and all objective development standards for single-family homes in the R1 single- family residential district. The City does not have objective architectural design standards for single-family homes; however, the proposal has been designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, the findings can be made to approve the project, and appropriate conditions of approval have been included in the Council Resolution (AS 20-02, Attachment 9).

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may approve the project with revisions, continue the project for further review or deny the project. Staff does not recommend these actions.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The applicant has paid all planning entitlement costs associated with the project. The project will also require payment of all associated building permit fees .

CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Tentative Map to subdivide the property into four (4) single family parcels (File Number TM 20-01) and the associated Architectural and Site Review Permit to construct four (4) two-story single-family homes on property located at 395 Lewis Street (File Number AS 20-02). The project also includes construction of three (3) detached accessory dwelling units that would otherwise be approved ministerially, pursuant to state law.

NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council approval, the Engineering Department would complete the process of signing and recording the Parcel Map. The applicant can then appl y for building permits to construct the project.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
On February 4, 2022, the project was published in the Gilroy Dispatch and on February 14, 2022, notices of this City Council meeting were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site. In addition, the City Council public hearing packets are

8.1 Packet Pg. 30

available through the City's webpage.

Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map

2. 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 01-13-2022

3. 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021

4. 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21

5. PC Staff Report 01-20-22

6. PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01

7. PC signed Resolution AS 20-02

8. TM 20-01 CC Draft Resolution

9. AS 20-02 CC Draft Resolution

8.1 Packet Pg. 31

Note: Map is for reference purposes only.

City of Gilroy
3,920
City of Gilroy, GIS Services
653.3
1:NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet
326.67 Feet653.30
City of Gilroy

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Vicinity Map (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.bPacket Pg. 33Attachment: 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 01-13-2022 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.bPacket Pg. 34Attachment: 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 01-13-2022 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 35Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 36Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 37Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

1"=10'-0"
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
#256
Juglans sp.
#263 Significant Tree
(Quecus agrifolia)
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Lot D
A.D.U.

Driveway Driveway
Sidewalk
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Lot CLot BLot A
Lewis StreetChestnut Street
A.D.U.A.D.U.
#254
Juglans sp.
#265
Juglans sp.
#266
Juglans sp.

Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Patio Sidewalk Sidewalk
Domestic
Water Meter
Gas & Elec.

Meters
Gas & Elec.

Meters
Gas & Elec.

Meters
(E) Curb / Butter
16'-0" P.U.E.

Bark
Mulch
Gates
5 Nandina
Domestica
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Gate
1 Lagerstroemia
Tuscarora
5 Rhaphiolepis
Umbellata minor
3 Calamagrostis K.F.
5 Acer rubrum
Oct. Glory
21 Coleonema
compacta
5 Nandina
Domestica
Gates
4 Escallonia
fradesii
5 Escallonia
fradesii
5 Iceberg
Roses
11 Dietes
Bark
Mulch
9 Rhapeolepis
Umbellata minor
15 Pittosporum
Tennuifolium
8 Prunus carolina
'Bright & Tight'
6 Toyon
9 Quercus
agrifolia
10 Pittosporum
Tennuifolium
9 Toyon
10 Rhapeolepis
Umbellata minor
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Bark
Mulch
Gates
3 Escallonia
fradesii
6 Dietes
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Fence
6' High
Fence
6' High
1 Lagerstroemia
Tuscarora
Top of Bank
Top of Bank
35'-0" Side Setback
from Top of Bank 35'-0"PLANTING NOTES

1. The contractor shall locate and verify the existence of all utilities prior to starting work.

2. The plant material locations are diagrammatic and subject to change in the field as directed by the Landscape Architect.

3. All plant material shall conform to the guidelines established by the current American Standard of Nursery Stock, published by The American Association of Nurserymen.

4. The plant count is for contractor's convenience. In case of discrepancy, the plan shall govern.

5. All trees to be staked plumb unless otherwise noted.

6. All planted areas shall be free from rocks and debris greater than 2" in diameter.

7. Prior to the planting of any materials, compacted soils shall be transformed to a friable condition. On engineered slopes, only amended planting holes need meet this requirement;

8. Soil amendments shall be incorporated according to recommendations of the soil report and what is appropriate for the plants selected;

9. For landscape installations, compost at a rate of a minimum of four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six inches into the soil. Soils with greater than 6% organic matter in the top 6 inches of soil are exempt from adding compost and tilling;

10. A minimum three inch (3″) layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, up to 5 % of the landscape area may be left without mulch. Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such;

11. Stabilizing mulching products shall be used on slopes that meet current engineering standards;

12. The mulching portion of the seed/mulch slurry in hydro-seeded applications shall meet the mulching requirement;

13. Organic mulch materials made from recycled or post-consumer shall take precedence over inorganic materials or virgin forest products unless the recycled post-consumer organic products are not locally available. Organic mulches are not required where prohibited by local Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines or other applicable local ordinances.

Karen Aitken & Associates -2021 These drawings are instruments of service, issued for a one-time single use by the owner. The entire contents of these drawings is copyright Karen Aitken & Associates. Landscape Architect retains all rights and title. No part may be reproduced in any fashion or medium without the express written approval of the landscape architect. The proper electronic transfer of data shall be the user’s responsibility without liability to the landscape architect. Owner shall assume responsibility for compliance with all easements, setback requirements and property lines. Owner shall acquire all necessary permits required to perform work shown on plans. Base information has been provided by the owner. Karen Aitken & Associates assumes no liability for the accuracy of said property line boundaries, fence lines or property corners.

REVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LEWIS P.U.D.

N LEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB* NOTES (E) = Existing
SCALE 1”=10’
0 10 20 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) [email protected] LEGEND 02-16-21

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

1"=10'-0"
L-2 IRRIGATION PLAN
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Lot D
A.D.U.

Driveway
Driveway
Sidewalk
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Lot CLot BLot A
Lewis StreetChestnut Street
A.D.U.

A.D.U.

Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Patio Sidewalk Sidewalk
Domestic
Water Meter
Gas & Elec.

Meters
Gas & Elec.

Meters
(E) Curb / Butter
16'-0" P.U.E.

Bark
Mulch
Gates
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Gate
Gates
Bark
Mulch
6 Toyon
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Bark
Mulch
Gates
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Fence
6' High
Fence
6' High
Top of Bank
Top of Bank
35'-0" Side Setback
from Top of Bank

IRRIGATION KEY
Main Line:SCH 40 2"
Use existing when possible
Sleeves: SCH 40 4"
Lateral Line SCh 40 1"
C
Drip Rings: Rainbird XFD on surface
dripline w/ 12" emitter spacing.

Backflow Device
3 Valve number callout and type of
irrigation
Rainbird Controller
22 station ESP-Me
Rainbird Drip Valve
XCS-100-PRF Netafim Dripline
C C C
4 1
2 Med Water Tree
Drip 81 SF
Low Water Tree
Drip 108 SF 3
4 Low Water
Drip 190 SF
1 2
3 4
Med Water
Drip 330 SF
Low Water Tree
Drip 54 SF
1 2 1
2 3Low Water Tree
Drip 135 SF
C
Med Water
Drip 353 SF Med Water Tree
Drip 54 SF
Med Water
Drip 480 SF
Med Water Tree
Drip 54 SF
Med Water
Drip 383 SF
Med Water
Drip 970 SF

IRRIGATION KEY
Main Line SCH 40 1 1/4"
Sleeves SCH 40 4" or contractor to locate and
use existing if possible
Lateral Line SCh 40 1"
Rainbird Drip Valve XCS-100-PRF
Drip Line: Netafim Techline CV LITE with 18" Emitter spacing and 24" lateral spacing. Provide flush valves at the end of each circuit and air relief valve at the high point of each circuit.

C Rainbird Controller 4 to 22- station ESP-Me
Rainbird Flow Sensor FS-200-P
Rainbird RSD Series Rain Shut OffR
Rainbird SMRT-Y Soil Moisture SensorMS
1300 Series Bubblers:
-1 Bubbler per 15 Gallon Tree
-2 Bubbler per 24" Box Tree
Med Water
Drip 242 SF
Low Water Tree
Drip 108 SF
Med Water
Drip 375 SF
“I have complied with the criteria of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance and applied them accordingly for the efficient use of water in the irrigation design plan.”

MS MS MS MS
R R R
R
Rainbird RSD
Series Rain Shut Off
Rainbird SMRT-Y Soil
Moisture Sensor
Rainbird 1300 Series
Bubbler

REVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) [email protected] Lewis StreetLewis PUD N LEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB
* NOTES (E) = Existing
SCALE 1”=10’
0 10 20 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
02-16-21

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

L-3 WATER CALCSREVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) [email protected] PUDLEWIS P.U.D.DATE SCALE
DRAWN
JOB 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
02-16-21

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

L-4 WATER CALCSREVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) [email protected] PUDLEWIS P.U.D.DATE SCALE
DRAWN
JOB 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
02-16-21

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

L-5 IRRIGATION DETAILSREVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) [email protected] Lewis PUDLEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 43Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 44Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 45Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 46Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 47Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 48Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 49Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 50Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 51Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 52Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 53Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 54Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 55Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 56Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 57Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 58Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 59Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

8.1.cPacket Pg. 60Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 03-01-2021 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -1- November 2021
City of Gilroy

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION
I. BACKGROUND

1. Application No: #20010012: AS 20-02 (Architectural and Site Review) and TM 20-01 (Vesting Tract Map)

2. Project Title: 395 Lewis Street Project

3. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Gilroy Planning Division, Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6197

4. Contact Person and Contact Information:

Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner
(408) 846-0253; [email protected]

5. Project Location: 395 Lewis Street (APN 395-03-062) in the eastern portion of the City of Gilroy; see Figure 1.

6. Project Applicant / Sponsor Name and Address:

Mark Design Group
1659 Scott Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95050

7. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (3-8 du/acre)

8. Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (R1)

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board: Review Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan filed by applicant

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.31? No

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Proposed Uses and Site Plan. The proposed project consists of a parcel map to subdivide an existing vacant 1.05-acre (45,816 square foot) lot into four single-family residential lots. Each

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -2- November 2021
new lot would be developed with a two-story single-family home. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be 8,363 square feet in area each, and each lot would include construction of a 3,193 square- foot single-family home with attached garage and a 631 square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU); see Figure 2. Lot 4, which would be 12,155 square feet in area, would be developed with a 3,410 square-foot single-family residence with attached garage and no ADU.

The project would result in a residential density of approximately four (4) dwelling units per acre (du/a). The project would install frontage improvements (i.e. sidewalk, curb, and gutter) and would be required to make a right-of-way street dedication to widen Chestnut Street by approximately 21.5 feet. The project would also be required to file a resolution of an existing access easement to the property, which runs immediately north of the subject property. A construction and maintenance easement would also be filed along the southern portion of the property. The net project site area, after deducting the right of way dedication, totals 37,245 square feet.

Site Layout and Architecture. The proposed single-family residences would be centrally located within the newly created parcels and face Chestnut Street. The residences would have front yard setbacks of at least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at least 35 feet, and side yard setbacks of at least 6 feet. The south-western portion of the project site is bordered by the Upper Miller Slough, which is considered a Category 2 stream by the City and requires a 35- foot riparian setback from the slough’s top of bank. The project is designed to comply with this requirement as shown on the site plan. Residences on Lots 1-3 are proposed to be 28.5 feet in height, and the Lot 4 residence is proposed to be 28 feet in height. The residences are proposed to have a stucco finish and concrete barrel-tiled roofs.

Grading. The project site would be graded prior to construction. Grading would involve a total fill of 299 cubic yards (cy) of earth material and cut of 75 cy of earth material, for a net fill (import) of 224 cy.

Utilities and Stormwater Management. The project would connect to the existing City of Gilroy water and sewer mains east of the site within Chestnut Street. The residences would also connect to existing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas main and electrical pole south of the site on Lewis Street. The project would create 24,284 square feet of impervious surfaces (approximately 53 percent of the site). Individual lots would be improved with bioretention areas to treat stormwater runoff prior to flowing to an underground storage to be detained and released into the public system.

Access and Parking. Each parcel would be accessed via new driveways off Chestnut Street.

Each residence includes an attached two-car garage. Parking and access for the newly subdivided lots would be subject to the City’s zoning regulations.

Landscaping. The project proposes to plant 24 new trees along the perimeter of the site, including 2 crape myrtles, 5 red maples, 8 laurel cherries, and 9 coast live oaks. Landscaping also includes the planting of various shrubs, groundcover, and grass. Each new lot would have landscaped backyards that would comply with riparian setback requirements to the adjacent

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -3- November 2021
Upper Miller Slough. Irrigation for landscaping will be required to comply with the City’s water efficient irrigation standards.

Entitlements. The project will require the following entitlement approvals from the City of Gilroy: (1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Article III of Chapter 21 of the Gilroy City Code to subdivide the project site into four parcels, (2) Architectural Site Review pursuant to Article L of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code to approve the site layout, building architecture and materials, and (3) building permits.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The approximately 1.05-acre site is a rectangular parcel located at 395 Lewis Street, east of Monterey Street and approximately 0.23 miles west of the Highway 101 within the City of Gilroy, as shown on Figure 1. The project site is bounded by Lewis Street to the south, Chestnut Street to the east, and Upper Miller Slough to the west. The project’s surrounding area is characterized by residential uses; the project is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, south, east, and west. San Ysidro City Park is located approximately 700 feet east of the project site.

The project site is a vacant undeveloped parcel with grass and former orchard trees and two (2) coast live oak trees. The project site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 198 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northeast portion of the property to approximately 189 MSL along the southwest portion of the property within Upper Miller Slough (H.T. Harvey Associates 2016). The site was previously occupied by a single-family house that was demolished without record.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -4- November 2021

FIGURE 1 : Project Location

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -5- November 2021
FIGURE 2: Project Site Plan

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -6- November 2021
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. Introduction and Background

In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental documents already provide an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts. An earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program environmental impact report (EIR), or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, if it can be determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c)(3)(D)). If an earlier analysis is used, the Initial Study checklist discussion should identify: a) the earlier analyses and state where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

CEQA also allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified General Plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the General Plan.

Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the General Plan for which an EIR was certified. Pursuant to section 21083.3(b), if a development project is consistent with the general plan for which an environmental impact report was certified, the application of CEQA shall be limited to effects on the environment which are “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project,” “if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, a project that is consistent with a General Plan that was adopted pursuant to a certified EIR, could be potentially partially or wholly exempt from further CEQA analyses.

Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance related to Public Resources Code section 21083. Specifically, a project may be exempt from review under CEQA the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis, that:

(1) The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified; (2) There are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site;

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -7- November 2021
(3) There are no project specific impacts which the General Plan EIR failed to analyze as significant effects;
(4) There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the General Plan EIR failed to evaluate; and
(5) There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the General Plan EIR.

Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (c) further provides that “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards,…, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” “[D]evelopment policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located…such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance.” (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (f).)

B. Use of Earlier Analyses

On November 2, 2020 the Gilroy City Council adopted the Gilroy 2040 General Plan after certifying an EIR for the plan. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes the Draft EIR volume (June 2020) and the Final EIR volume (September 2020). The General Plan EIR reviewed all of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR.

The General Plan EIR is a “program” EIR prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which reviewed environmental impacts associated with future development and buildout within the City’s planning area that would be accommodated by the General Plan. A program EIR can be used for subsequent projects implemented within the scope of the program/plan. Typically, site-specific or new significant impacts that weren’t addressed in the program EIR would be evaluated in an Initial Study, leading to preparation of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR. Mitigation measures adopted for the General Plan also would be a part of future development projects, as relevant, and supplemented, as may be necessary, with any site-specific mitigation measures identified in the project-specific environmental review process.

As indicated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, certain (or potentially all) aspects of a development project that are consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR was certified may be exempt from additional CEQA analyses (i.e., negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR) of issues that were adequately covered in the General Plan EIR. The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City’s 2040 General Plan with an allowed density of 3-8 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Single-Family Residential District (R1). The proposed residential subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and density.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -8- November 2021

While the 2040 General Plan EIR considered the impacts of development on vacant or underutilized parcels in the City as a whole, specific future development of the project site was not noted or specifically evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR, and there were no site- specific impacts identified for the project site. However, as part of the overall estimated buildout, the EIR considered construction of new residential units in the City with an estimated buildout of 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi- family) throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The EIR also projects an estimated 21,434 new jobs within the City by 2040.

Approximately 396 residential units have been constructed or approved throughout the City between 2019 (“baseline” General Plan EIR year) and 2020. Although the City has not yet counted new residential units in 2021, it can be reasonably concluded that the four proposed residential units and three ADUs would be within the residential buildout estimate of 6,477 new dwelling units considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.

C. Environmental Checklist Review

The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist also identifies whether the project involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR or new significant impacts not peculiar to the site or project. As indicated above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the site or project if uniformly applied development policies or standards will substantially mitigate an environmental effect.

Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site or project and/or relevant applicable development policies or standards that will be applied to the project.

The checklist follows the questions included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

However, the City of Gilroy has adopted significance thresholds that were adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7. The City’s CEQA thresholds are generally of similar nature and scope as those listed in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, but also include other thresholds specific to City conditions. The corresponding City thresholds are referenced in parentheses for each checklist question consistent with the labeling in the adopted thresholds (City of Gilroy May 2004), and the adopted thresholds also are addressed in the narrative explanations. The 2040 General Plan EIR is on file at the City’s Planning Division of its Community Development Department, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday Friday. The adopted thresholds and the 2040 General Plan

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -9- November 2021
documents are available for review on the City of Gilroy’s Planning Division’s website, respectively, at:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/3092/Thresholds-of- Significance?bidId= and http://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan .

D. Conclusion

Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2040 EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: air quality (sensitive receptors); energy consumption; geology and soils (fault rupture, paleontological resources); greenhouse gas emissions; hazardous materials use; hydrology/water quality (groundwater, flood hazards); land use, noise (noise increases, vibration); population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflict with plans, exceed vehicle miles traveled [VMT] threshold); utilities; and cumulative impacts.

The following site-specific impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant and/or less than significant with General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City: aesthetics (scenic resources, visual character and light and glare); air quality (conflicts with Clean Air Plan, emissions); biological resources (sensitive habitat, nesting birds, tree removal); cultural and tribal cultural resources (archaeological resources); geology and soils (seismic-geologic hazards, erosion, expansive soils); and hydrology/water quality (water quality, stormwater drainage). Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.

No impacts peculiar to the project or the project site have been identified related to aesthetics (scenic views), agricultural and forest resources, air quality (odors), biological resources (special status species, conflicts with plans), cultural resources (historical resources), geology and soils (use of septic systems), hazards/hazardous materials (location on hazardous materials site, airport hazards, emergency access, wildland fire hazard), hydrology-water quality (conflict with plans), mineral resources, noise (airport noise), transportation (hazardous design, emergency access), and wildfire.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -10- November 2021
E. Checklist and Discussion

1. AESTHETICS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? (City Threshold 1a)
DEIR pp. 3-10 to
3-19 No No None
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway? (City Thresholds 1b-d)
DEIR pp. 3-10,
3-19 to 3-23 No No None
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
(City Thresholds 1e, g)
DEIR pp. 3-10,
3-23 to 3-28,
3-29 to 3-30
No No
R1 Single-Family
Residential
District Site and
Building
requirements;
Architectural
and Site Review
per City Code
sections 30.5.30
and 30.50.40
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area? (City Threshold 1f)
DEIR pp. 3-10,
to 3-28 to 3-29 No No
City Code
section 30.50.44
Standard
Condition of
Approval
regarding offsite
lighting

(a) Scenic Views. The General Plan EIR analyzes programmatic CEQA impacts per the City’s adopted CEQA Thresholds of Significance (Gilroy 2004). Theses thresholds focus on the visual character within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan and hillside areas within the City. The General Plan indicates that prominent scenic resources and views include farmland, surrounding hillsides, and areas viewed from Hecker Pass Highway and Uvas Park Drive (City of Gilroy 2020c). The General Plan EIR also indicates that other panoramic views of aesthetic value consist of a “tapestry” of agricultural lands interwoven by riparian areas, accompanied by the hillside backdrop to the east and west that frame the City (City of Gilroy 2020a). The EIR analysis concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the General Plan would not change the availability or value of views to the City’s scenic hillsides or open space. Implementation of the General Plan’s goals, policies, and programs, including compliance with design review procedures, would reduce potential aesthetic impacts to hillsides or scenic views as a result of new development to less than significant.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -11- November 2021
The project site is located in a developed residential neighborhood of the City of Gilroy and is not within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area or in a hillside area. The proposed project would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic view as none have been identified, mapped or observed that include the project site. The project proposes two-story residences in a zoning district with established development standards that safeguard scenic resources and that have been considered in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic views that are peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Scenic Resources. The General Plan EIR specifies impact thresholds for scenic resources if there are impacts along Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, and Pacheco Pass Highway as well as to farmland and surrounding hills viewed from Highway 101. Scenic resources identified in the General Plan EIR include riparian resources and farmland, and the panoramic views afforded of hillsides and open space along State Route 152 west of Santa Teresa Boulevard. There are no designated state scenic highways or roads within the City. The General Plan supports the designation of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152) as an official State Scenic Highway; however, designation has not yet occurred.

The project site is not located near a state scenic highway, Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or Pacheco Pass Highway. Although the project site is within the vicinity of Highway 101, the project is not sited on a hillside and does not contain farmlands that would be visible from Highway 101. There are no structures on the project site that would be considered scenic resources.

The proposed project also provides the required riparian setback, consistent with General Plan policies to protect riparian features.

The project site currently contains 25 trees of various species and health, mostly planted and former orchard trees. The project would remove 20 trees and retain five trees along the western portion of the site of which 13 are considered to be in declining condition with severe structural defects (HT Harvey 2017). The trees do not represent a significant visual element of the surrounding area, and removal would not substantially alter the visual character of the area. While any tree may possess aesthetic qualities, the trees that would be removed are not unusual for the species nor are they visually distinctive or prominent from a wide area. Therefore, tree removal would not substantially impact the site’s scenic attributes.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, future development accommodated by the Plan would not result in significant impacts to scenic resources.

The General Plan seeks to preserve natural features that visually define areas and provide scenic benefits and allow residents to enjoy views of hills, creeks, and habitats. Despite the fact that two of the trees proposed to be removed are considered significant as defined by the City of Gilroy’s Zoning Ordinance, the trees proposed for removal are not visible from a wide-ranging area, are not visually prominent or distinctive, and are not considered scenic resources. Moreover, the project landscaping plan, which is required to comply with the City of Gilroy zoning regulations on tree removal, includes planting approximately 24 new trees in addition to the existing trees that would be retained.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic resources that would be

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -12- November 2021
peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(c) Effects on Visual Character. The project area is located approximately is in an area that is characterized primarily by single-family residential development. Building heights and architectural styles are varied and include one- to two-story residences of varied size, style and age.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the General Plan would not substantially degrade the visual character of surrounding areas with implementation of General Plan policies and actions to follow design guidelines and continued application of design review as part of Architectural Site Review entitlement approvals. The 2040 General Plan EIR focuses on scenic impacts within gateways to the City which are defined as north and south Monterey Street, State Route 152/Hecker Pass Highway, State Route 152/Pacheco Pass Highway, north and south Santa Teresa Boulevard, and at the U.S. Highway 101 interchanges at Masten, Buena Vista, Leavesley, and Tenth. The project is not located within these gateway areas.

The City of Gilroy is an “urbanized area” under the definition of the term in CEQA Guidelines section 15387. Therefore, per the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist question), the City need not specifically consider existing visual character or the quality of the existing views and the project’s potential effect on them. The standard of review is whether a project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Future residences constructed on the project site as facilitated by the proposed subdivision would be subject to the same City land use and zoning regulations as the surrounding R1 district residential development, including regulations for setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc. The EIR also provides a City CEQA threshold of significance regarding fence and wall height. The project would represent no impact related to the City’s threshold regarding wall heights because it does not propose a fence or wall that exceeds seven feet in height. As a result, the project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The project is subject to Architectural Site Review pursuant to Municipal Code Section 30.50.40, which considers the character and integrity of a neighborhood and use of land in harmony with the surrounding environment. Architectural Site Review would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in aesthetic impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or area, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(d) Light and Glare. The project would not result in introduction of a major new source of light or glare, although there would be introduction of windows and typical exterior building lighting. This type of lighting would be similar to existing sources of light surrounding the project site and would be oriented so as to not create off-site light.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -13- November 2021
The General Plan EIR concluded that new infill development accommodated by the plan could result in potential sources of light and glare, but would not result in significant impact. Exterior lighting would be included as part of the development, but would be typical of residential lighting, and would not result in nighttime illumination levels beyond the property line. Additionally, section 30.50.44(c) of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits unobstructed beam or outwardly directed lighting onto any residential use or public right-of-way; the code section also states that lighting should only be directed at its intended area an off-site glare fully controlled. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare or result in off-site impacts.

The City’s Municipal Code requires a standard condition of approval requires all exterior lighting not be directed outward from the project site to avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties. An approved Architectural and Site Review Permit, including findings pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section 30.5.30 and inclusion of a standard condition of approval regarding exterior lighting pursuant to City Code Section 30.50.44, would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Thus, there would be no light and glare impacts peculiar to the project or the site with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES1
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards 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? (City
Threshold 2a)
DEIR pp. 3-32 to
3-35, 3-42 to 3-
47 No No None

1In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement Methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -14- November 2021

2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES1
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (City Threshold 2b)
DEIR pp. 3-33,
3-37, 3-43, 3-47 No No None
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))?
DEIR pp. 3-34 No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
DEIR pp. 3-34,
3-41, 3-101 No No None
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? (City
Threshold 2c)
DEIR pp. 3-33,
3-41 to 3-47 No No None

The project site is located within the developed residential area of the City of Gilroy. The project site does not contain prime farmland or other agricultural lands as mapped on the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (Figure 3.2-1 of the DEIR, City of Gilroy 2020a). The site is not designated for agricultural uses in the City’s General Plan and is not located adjacent to agricultural lands. The project site is not zoned Timberland Preserve and does not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.

While the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to agriculture due to conversion of agricultural lands as a result of future development accommodated by the plan would be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation, the proposed project would not result in conversion of agricultural or forest lands, as these resources are not present on or adjacent to the project site. The General Plan EIR identified oak and riparian woodlands as potential forest resources. However, neither of these woodland habitat types have been identified on the project site (H.T. Harvey Associates 2016), and therefore, would not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts on agriculture and forest resources that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the 2040 General

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -15- November 2021
Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

3. AIR QUALITY 2
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (City Threshold 3a)
DEIR pp. 3-71 to
3-85
FEIR p. 3-3
No No AQ-1 and AQ-2
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard? (City Thresholds 3b-c)
DEIR pp. 3-86 to
3-97

No No None
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(City Threshold 3d)
DEIR pp. 3-97 to
3-103
FEIR pp. 3-3 to
3-4

No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people? (City Threshold 3e)
DEIR pp. 3-106 No No None

(a) Conflict with Air Quality Management Plan. The project is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The air district is the agency responsible for assuring state and federal air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin. The BAAQMD is charged with regulatory authority of stationary air emission sources, monitoring air quality, providing guidelines for air quality impacts pursuant to CEQA, and preparing air quality management plans.

BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (“2017 Clean Air Plan”), which updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan, pursuant to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code. The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides an integrated, multi-pollutant control strategy to reduce emissions of particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, ozone precursors, and greenhouse gases. The 2017 Clean Air Plan outlines a variety of control measures, many of which relate to industrial uses or are for regional implementation.

2Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -16- November 2021
The General Plan EIR states that the General Plan policies and programs are consistent with all 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, except TR22: Construction, Freight and Farming. However, by implementing a mitigation measure (AQ-1), this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Per the Final General Plan EIR, MM AQ-1 requires the use of low emission construction equipment for public and private projects. The EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan goals and policies, in addition to two mitigation measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2 described below), would reduce potentially significant impacts due to inconsistency with BAAQMDs 2017 Clean Air Plan to a less-than-significant level.

BAAQMD also provides technical information about how particulate matter (PM) is emitted and formed in the Bay Area in its 2012 Particulate Matter Plan, titled Understanding Particulate Matter:

Protecting Public Health in the San Francisco Bay Area. This plan describes progress in reducing PM emissions and concentrations and identifies future technical work to improve the air districts understanding of PM. The General Plan EIR states that implementation of the General Plan, and associated buildout, would result in PM emissions during construction. To reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the EIR prescribes Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires the implementation of BAAQMDs dust control measures during construction of individual projects. The EIR subsequently concludes that, with implementation of AQ-2, implementation of the General Plan and associated buildout, would be consistent with BAAQMDs 2012 Particulate Matter Plan.

As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of new residential units in the City with an estimated buildout of 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single- family units and 3,278 multi-family) throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. With regards to potential conflict with applicable air quality plans, the EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant with mitigation measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2) that were added to the General Plan and require implementation of construction emissions controls as part of future construction of development projects. These measures will be included as project conditions of approval and are considered uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflicts with the BAAQMD air quality plans that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan EIR with uniformly applied developed standards, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards that are the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), inhalable particulates (PM 10 ), fine particulates (PM 2.5 ), and lead. High O 3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ), which react under certain meteorological conditions to form O 3 . In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants.

An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards, as further discussed below.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -17- November 2021

The project site is located within the San Francisco Air Basin (“air basin”), which is under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. As of 2017, the air basin is designated non-attainment for federal ozone and PM 2.5 standards and is designated attainment or attainment/unclassified for the other federal standards. The air basin is designated non-attainment for the state ozone, PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards.

The General Plan EIR used the BAAQMD’s methodology to assess impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions. For general plans, the air district does not recommend determinations based on criteria air pollutant emission modeling, but indicates that if a plan’s increase in projected VMT or vehicle trips (either measure may be used) is less than or equal to its projected population increase, a plan would have a less-than-significant air quality impact. The District’s CEQA Guidelines method of criteria air pollutant analysis for general plans is based on meeting the following two thresholds:
• Consistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures (as above); and • A proposed plan’s projected VMT or vehicle trips (either measure may be used) increase is less than or equal to its projected population increase.

The General Plan EIR concluded that contributions to criteria air pollutant emissions would be significant due to an increase in VMT as a result of new development accommodated by the General Plan. Although the Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes numerous policies that are intended to reduce VMT, it is not possible to accurately quantify the VMT reductions that would result, and therefore, the EIR concluded that there is no assurance that VMT could be reduced by the required 32.6 percent that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Project construction could result in generation of dust and PM 10 emissions as a result of site excavation and grading. According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017a), a project would be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable impact if the project individually has a significant air quality impact or is inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017b). The BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines also indicate that if a proposed project meets the screening criteria in the District’s Guidelines, the project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the District’s significance thresholds, and therefore, operation of a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. The BAAQMD’s screening level for single-family homes is 325 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project with four proposed homes and three ADUs would be substantially below this screening level and would be presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions. A project could also result in a significant impact if it would conflict with the District’s Clean Air Plan. However, because project emissions would be below the BAAQMD impact thresholds, the project would not be required to incorporate project-specific control measures listed in the 2017 CAP, and therefore, would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan.

Based on the BAAQMD’s adopted CEQA Guidelines and significance thresholds, the project would not violate current air quality standards or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site, or substantially more severe impacts than

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -18- November 2021
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(c) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor is defined as any residence, including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 schools; daycare centers; and healthcare facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. A sensitive receptor includes long-term care hospitals, hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing (BAAQMD 2017a). The project site is surrounded by residential sensitive receptors. The proposed residential project would not introduce a new source of stationary emissions, and thus, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The General Plan EIR identifies existing uses that emit toxic air contaminants. These include generators, gasoline stations, agricultural activities, and traffic on U.S. Highway 101. The EIR states that implementation of General Plan goals and policies in addition to compliance with federal, state, and local regulations reduce public health risks from these known exposure sites. However, the EIR also notes that development associated with the General Plan buildout has the potential to expose people to toxic air contaminants when residential development is proposed within 500 feet of U.S. highway 101 or heavy industrial areas. To mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, the EIR prescribes mitigation measures AQ-3 through AQ-5 for projects within 500 feet of U.S. Highway 101 or heavy industrial areas. Because the project does not fall under either of these criteria, these mitigation measures do not apply. Because the proposed project is within the overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts have been identified specific to the project, no further environmental analysis regarding pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(d) Odors. According to the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a), land uses associated with odor impacts wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The proposed project does not include any uses associated with odors, and would result in no impact.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards 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
DEIR pp. 3-118
to 3-129, 3-138
to 3-141
No No BIO-1

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -19- November 2021

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:

Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (City Threshold 4a)
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 California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (City Threshold 4b)
DEIR pp. 3-110,
3-138 to 3-143 No No None
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (City
Threshold 4c)
DEIR pp. 3-143
to 3-146 No No
BIO-2, Gilroy
City Code
Chapter 27
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
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, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? (City Threshold 4d)
DEIR pp. 3-110,
3-138 to 3-141,
3-146 to 3-148
No No
Condition of
Approval
requiring pre-
construction
bird nesting
surveys
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (City Threshold
4e)
DEIR pp. 3-111,
3-148 to 3-149 No No
Tree Removal
Permit and
required
replacement
trees
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? (City Threshold 4f)
DEIR pp. 3-111
to 3-118, 3-149
to 3-150
No No None

(a) Special-Status Species. A Biological Resources Report was prepared for the project by H.T. Harvey & Associates in 2016, which assessed existing biological conditions and potential impacts to biological resources. The report identified three habitat types on the project site: developed/disturbed (0.18- acre), ruderal woodland/grassland (0.71-acre), and ephemeral stream (0.03-acre). Based on historic aerial photography, the report noted that the southeastern portion of the project site previously contained a residence, gravel driveway, and several small structures.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -20- November 2021

The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to special status species as a result of future development would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires evaluation of impacts to special-status species as part of proposed developments. A biological resources report was prepared for the proposed project, consistent with this policy. Based on the review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) and site review, several special-status animal and plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur on the project site. Reconnaissance-level biological surveys were conducted on the project site to provide project-specific impact assessments for the development of the site. The survey determined all of these animal species to be absent from the project site due to lack of suitable habitat or evidence that the species does not occur in the project vicinity. The report concluded that no special- status plant species are considered to have potential to occur on the project site, and the presence of special-status animals is precluded by the combination of a lack of suitable habitat and the presence of extensive development in surrounding areas. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts to special-status plant and animal species, and because the proposed project is within the overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts have been identified specific to the project, no further environmental analysis regarding pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b-c) Sensitive Habitat (Miller Slough) and Wetlands. The General Plan EIR identifies sensitive natural habitats as oak woodland, riparian and wetland habitats. The proposed project is adjacent to the Miller Slough, which is an ephemeral stream (riparian habitat) that has characteristics used by federal and state agencies to define their jurisdictions and would be considered a sensitive wetland habitat, although riparian vegetation is not present (H.T. Harvey Associates 2016). This portion of the project site is situated within the ordinary high mark boundaries of Miller Slough and would fall under United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction. The project biological resources report also explains that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildfire (CDFW) jurisdiction would extend from top of bank along Miller Slough, but due to the scarcity of riparian or marsh habitat surrounding Miller Slough on the project site, these agencies’ jurisdiction would not extend farther onto the site.

The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and implementation programs to protect sensitive habitat areas, including setbacks, and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that requires project-level wetland review, potentially significant impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. The proposed project would not encroach into potential federal or state jurisdictional wetland areas and would comply with the City of Gilroy’s Stream Protection Policy that requires a 20-foot setback from the top of bank for residential development. The proposed residences would be set back 35 feet from the Miller Slough’s top of bank. Although the project is not covered by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan) as explained below in Section 4(f), the plan does recommend a 35-foot setback from the top of bank of riparian corridors. The proposed project meets this recommended setback distance, which exceeds the City’s required setback, and therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat would be less than significant.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -21- November 2021
The USACE and the U.S. EPA define wetlands in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 323.2 as “areas defined as an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Although a formal wetland delineation was not conducted on the project site, as noted above, Miller Slough is an ephemeral stream and is the only feature on the project site that has potential wetland characteristics, but would not be disturbed with the proposed development setbacks. The project biological resources report evaluated potential indirect impacts to Miller Slough as summarized below.

The biological report explains that indirect impacts on Miller Slough water quality could occur from the project if loose soil sediment is disturbed by construction or if fuel/substance leaks used by construction equipment enter the slough. Operationally, impacts could occur from an increase of hardscape on the site and subsequent increased stormwater flows and rates of erosion. However, as described in detail in Sections 7(b) and 10(c), the project would be required to comply with soil erosion and storm water management regulations that would minimize potential construction and operational water quality impacts to Miller Slough. These regulations would require the project to implement best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development practices that would minimize stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration. In accordance with these requirements, the project has proposed four new biorientation areas that would capture and filter stormwater runoff prior to entering the slough. Because the project would comply with City stormwater and erosion control regulations and would not encroach within 35 feet of Miller Slough, potential water quality and habitat impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site, or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR regarding sensitive habitats and wetlands, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(d) Wildlife Movement/Breeding. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the 2040 General Plan goals, policies and programs, as well as future environmental review of specific development projects and compliance with the Habitat Plan, potential impacts related to wildlife movement would be considered less than significant. The project site is designated as Urban Development according to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and is currently surrounded by urban development. As discussed above, through compliance with the Gilroy City Code and 35-foot setback requirements per the Habitat Plan, potential impacts to Miller Slough would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the project biological report concludes that the project would have a less-than- significant impact to common plant and animal communities. The report states that the project would result in impacts to up to 0.6-acre of ruderal woodland/grassland habitat outside of the ephemeral stream setback area. This area of the project site is flatter and largely dominated by non-native grasses, forbs, and trees and is inhabited by urban-adapted, common, and widespread species native to the San Francisco Bay Area. The report further explains that the project site supports only a small proportion of the regional populations of these common animal and plant species and therefore would have limited impacts on the abundance and assemblage of these species (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2016).

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -22- November 2021
However, trees on and adjacent to the project site have the potential to provide nesting habitat for migratory birds which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Tree removal during the breeding season (generally March 1 to August 1) has the potential to destroy bird nests, eggs or chicks if any are present during the removal. The biological report recommends implementation of a pre-construction nesting survey that would ensure no nests would be disturbed. Inclusion of a standard condition of approval to require a pre-construction bird nesting survey, prior to any construction during breeding season, would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. As indicated in the City’s standard conditions of approval, the nesting survey would be conducted no more than seven days before the start of construction activities; if an active nest is found sufficiently close to disturbed work areas, a construction-free buffer zone would be established around the nest to ensure no nests would be disturbed.

Potential project impacts to nesting birds would be considered less than significant with application of uniformly applied development standards (condition of approval to conduct pre-construction nesting survey). Thus, as explained above, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

(e) Conflicts with Local Plans. The project site currently contains 25 trees of various health and species. The project would remove 20 trees and retain five trees along the western portion of the site. The project Arborist Report details existing tree conditions and species on site. A total of five existing trees would be retained with the project. The project would result in removal of 20 on-site trees, most of which are orchard trees. Of the 20 trees to be removed, 13 are considered to be in declining condition with severe structural defects (HT Harvey 2017).

The project would result in the removal of two mature coast live oaks (both greater than 20 inches in diameter), which are native to Gilroy. According to the City of Gilroy Code (Section 30.38) both coast live oak trees would qualify as protected trees. The biological report clarifies that all trees on the project site are common and do not provide specialized, sensitive, or biologically important habitat.

Removal of any protected tree is subject to the approval of the Planning Division Manager, consistent with City Code Section 30.38.270, including required replacement trees. The project proposes to replant 24 new trees to replace the two protected tress that would be removed. Trees to remain would be protected by implementing protection measures prescribed by the project-specific arborist report, consistent with City Code 30.38.40 General landscape standards. For these reasons, the project would comply with City of Gilroy protected tree provisions.

The General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the removal of protected trees; however, with implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and programs, as well as compliance with local regulations and plans, impacts would be less than significant. Removal of protected trees that is consistent with City regulations and requirements would not be considered a significant impact of the project or an impact peculiar to the project. The proposed project includes an arborist report and tree removal is consistent with the City’s Code requirements. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -23- November 2021
conflicts with local ordinances or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards set forth in the protected tree removal regulations, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(f) Conflicts with Habitat Conservation and Natural Community Conservation Plans. As discussed in the biological report, the project is not subject to specific regulations by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The General Plan EIR indicates that the project site is within a “Developed” area within the Habitat Plan Land Cover Map in the Habitat Plan. The project would therefore not be subject to project-specific Habitat Plan permits or fees, as mentioned in the General Plan EIR. There are no other habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that cover the project or project vicinity. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to conflicts with habitat conservation plans, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
2040 General
Plan EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as pursuant to Section
15064.5? (City Threshold 5a)
DEIR pp. 3-153,
3-169 to 3-171,
and FEIR pp. 3-5
FEIR pp. 3-5 to
3-6
No No None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5? (City Threshold 5b)
DEIR pp. 3-153,
3-171 to 3-173,
and FEIR pp. 2-
9, 3-6
FEIR pp. 2-9 to
2-10, 3-5 to 3-6
No No
Standard
Planning
Condition of
Approval for
unanticipated
discovery of
archaeological
resource
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (City Threshold 5c)
DEIR pp. 3-153,
3-174 to 3-175,
and FEIR pp. 2-
9, 3-6
No No
Standard
Planning
Condition of
Approval for
unanticipated
discovery of
archaeological
resource

(a) Historical Resources. The project site currently is undeveloped and has no structures or elements with historic value. The General Plan EIR concluded that programmatic development and buildout would result in a less-than-significant impact to historical resources with the implementation of general plan policies and Mitigation Measure CR-1. This mitigation measure states that historic and culturally significant buildings should be preserved, that the City should maintain and update an

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -24- November 2021
inventory of historically and culturally significant buildings, and that prior to any demolition of historically significant buildings, an EIR should prepared. As mentioned above, the project site does not contain buildings or structures that could be considered historical resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts on historical resources, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b-c) Archaeological Resources and Disturbance of Human Remains. According to maps developed for the City’s 2040 General Plan and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in a low sensitivity zone for historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would result in construction that could result in impacts to buried archaeological resources. However, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions and compliance with local and state regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The General Plan EIR prescribes Mitigation Measure CR-2, which requires a project-level archaeological survey if a project is located on a site in a moderate to high archaeological sensitivity zone as identified on Figure 3.5-1 of the General Plan EIR. The project site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area per that figure, and thus preparation of an archaeological investigation was not required, and this mitigation measure is not applicable. For these reasons, the project would not result in archaeological impacts peculiar to the site or project.

Furthermore, If human remains are discovered during construction, all construction and excavation activity would be required to cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code.

If the remains are of Native American descent, a series of actions would be triggered to identify and appropriately treat the remains, including the notification to the County Coroner of the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which in turn would inform a most likely descendent pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, according to the General Plan Final EIR, the City has a standard condition of approval related to potential discovery of unidentified archaeological or historical resources during construction that would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Discovery of unidentified (e.g., buried) cultural resources during construction would subject to this standard condition of approval which would require all work to be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find; the City shall be notified and professional archaeologist retained to evaluate and prescribe measures to protect the find.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to archaeological resources not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site, and the City’s standard condition of approval would be included for the project related to discovery of resources during construction, which is considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -25- November 2021

6. ENERGY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
DEIR pp. 3-459
to 3-462, 4-13 No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
DEIR pp. 3-459,
3-461 to 3-462 No No None

(a) Energy Use. According to the General Plan EIR, the three primary sources of long-term energy consumption from new development and operations within the City would be fuel use in vehicles and use of natural gas and electricity. In addition, there would be consumption of nonrenewable energy resources during construction, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline) for automobiles and construction equipment, and other resources including, but not limited to, sand, gravel, asphalt, and metals.

The project would result in an increase in vehicle trip generation (as described in Section 17, Transportation) and, hence, a net increase in petroleum use associated with vehicle use would occur with project operation. However, as discussed in Section 17, the addition of four single-family residences and three ADUs would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project would not result in a more severe significant impact related to VMT than otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR. The project site also is in proximity to bike lanes, multi-use paths, and a City-sponsored bike share program.

Operation of the project would also involve consumption of electricity and natural gas; however, an increase in the consumption of these resources associated with project operation would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet the California Building Code as well as compliance with City requirements for water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping.

These measures are consistent with those recommended for residential uses in the City’s General Plan related to building and energy efficiency and water conservation.

The General Plan EIR reviewed energy use associated with development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan. The EIR concluded that overall, the future consumption of electrical and natural gas resources would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources given the implementation of policies that address energy conservation measures. It is expected that nonrenewable energy resources would be used efficiently during future project construction given state of California requirements for energy-efficient equipment. Therefore, the amount and rate of

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -26- November 2021
consumption of such resources during construction and maintenance activities would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources. The proposed project, which is within the projected buildout of the General Plan EIR, would not result in impacts that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR related to inefficient or wasteful use of energy. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Conflicts with Plans. The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be no impact due to conflicts with state or local energy plans because the General Plan buildout would comply with applicable State regulations and legislation and implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and programs would ensure the no conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project falls within the buildout projection of the General Plan EIR and would not result in conflicts with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The proposed project features and design elements are consistent the City’s General Plan provisions related to energy efficiency. Therefore, no further review is necessary.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated 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? (City
Threshold 6a-1)
DEIR pp. 3-177
to 3-179, 3-193
to 3-194
No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(City Threshold 6a-2)
DEIR pp. 3-195
to 3-196 No No
California
Building Code
Seismic Design
Criteria
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? (City
Threshold 6a-3)
DEIR pp. 3-182
to 3-185, 3-197
to 3-200
No No None
iv) Landslides? (City Threshold 6a-4) DEIR pp. 3-189,
3-200 to 3-202 No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? (City Threshold 6b)
DEIR pp. 3-202
to 3-205 No No Gilroy City Code
Chapter 6
regarding

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -27- November 2021

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
grading and
erosion control
plans
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(City Threshold 6c)
DEIR pp. 3-205
to 3-207 No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating direct or indirect substantial
risks to life or property? (City
Threshold 6d)
DEIR pp. 3-207
to 3-209 No No
California
Building Code
Requirements
for Geotechnical
Reports
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
DEIR pp. 3-150
to 3-151 No No

(a-i) Fault Rupture. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development could introduce additional population that could be exposed to risks or harm and property damage resulting from surface fault rupture along the Carnadero Fault (which is the only fault zone area within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary). Although the United States Geological Survey has not identified this fault as active, Santa Clara County has mapped a Fault Rupture Zone along that fault (Santa Clara County 2021). The proposed project is approximately 2.2 miles east of the nearest mapped rupture zone area. The project site is also not delineated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zoning map area per the California Department of Conservation. Therefore, the project site is not located within known fault rupture zones, and impacts related to fault rupture are not expected.

(a-ii) Seismic Hazards. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, and the project could be subject to seismic shaking during an earthquake on regional faults. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and programs, the risk of human harm or property damage resulting from exposure to seismic ground shaking would be less than

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -28- November 2021
significant. In particular, Policy PH 2.5 requires geologic hazards reports for all new development applications to assess potential geologic hazards and to determine if these hazards can be adequately mitigated. In addition, adherence to existing regulations and standards, including preparation of geotechnical investigations and adherence to the California Building Code and various policies and actions established in the General Plan, harm to people and structures from adverse seismic events would be minimized (Gilroy 2020a). The requirement to prepare a project design-level geotechnical investigation and implement the recommendations would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards for required geological and geotechnical investigations and implementation of recommendations contained in these reports. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(a-iii, -iv, c) Liquefaction, Landslides, and Unstable Soils. According to maps developed as part of the General Plan EIR, certain areas of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary include expansive soils and areas vulnerable to liquefaction and soil settlement. Development within these areas could potentially result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. However, the General Plan EIR provides goals, policies and programs that protect life and minimize property damage from development on unstable soils or geologic units. The EIR concludes that implementation of these General Plan goals, policies, and programs would reduce potential significant impacts related to unstable soils to a less-than-significant level.

The General Plan EIR provides a map that delineates high/very high liquefaction zones for which specific General Plan goals and policies would apply. These areas are present along Uvas Creek from Hecker Pass Highway to the southeast toward State Highway 101 as well as certain areas east of State Highway 101. However, the project site is not located within these liquefaction hazard zones (Gilroy 2020a). In addition, a project-level geotechnical investigation was performed by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering (2016), which concludes that there are no liquefiable soils underlying the project site.

The report, which recorded field soil conditions and conducted a laboratory investigation, determined that the site with its underlying soils is suitable for the proposed residential development (Silicon Valley Soil Engineering 2016). For these reasons, the project site is not in an area susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence and related impacts. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat and is not located in an area subject to slope instability or within a landslide hazard zone according to a map developed as part of the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the project site is not in an area susceptible to landslides and related impacts. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards that require project geotechnical investigations and implementation of recommendations contained in these reports. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Erosion. The project site is generally flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion.

Potential for erosion would be highest during ground-disturbing activities including grading and trenching for foundations, driveways, and utilities. According to Soils Map (Figure 3.2-3) of the

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -29- November 2021
General Plan EIR, the project site contains Zomora clay loam soils with 0 to 2 percent slopes. Per the General Plan EIR, this soil type has slight erosion hazard potential (Gilroy 2020a).

The General Plan EIR concluded that the majority of future construction in the Urban Growth Boundary would likely occur on relatively flat slopes where the soil erosion potential ranges from none to slight, and therefore, impacts from soil erosion in these areas of the Urban Growth Boundary will likely be limited. The proposed project is located in the Urban Growth Boundary and also has a low erosion potential. The proposed project plans include erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during completion of site improvements. Implementation of project erosion control plans and erosion control standards and requirements set forth in the Gilroy City Code Chapter 6 would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the project would not result in new significant erosion impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(d) Expansive Soils. Expansive soils contain large amounts of clays that expand when wetted and contract when dried. According to the project’s geotechnical investigation, soils at the project site consist of a mixture of stiff sandy and silty clays and gravel. The geotechnical investigation determined that soils on the site have a low to moderate expansion potential for expansion (Silicon Valley Soil Engineering 2016) and concluded that the site is suitable for development with implementation of recommendations in the report. Implementation of recommendations set forth in the project geotechnical report is required by the California Building Code and City regulations and policies, which would ensure that potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could be exposed to expansive soils, which would be addressed through compliance with state and local regulations, including the California Building Code requirements, which would ensure that buildings are designed to prevent structural damages based on project-specific geotechnical investigations.

The requirement to prepare a project geotechnical investigation and implement the recommendations would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard, and a project geotechnical report has been prepared. Thus, with implementation of the foregoing uniformly applied development standards and regulations that require preparation of geotechnical report and implementation of recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(e) Use of Septic Systems. The project would be connected to City sanitary sewers and would not use septic systems.

(f) Paleontological Resources. The General Plan EIR indicates that in the Santa Clara Valley, Pleistocene-age (1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago) sediments and rocks have potential to contain paleontological resources such as fossils. However, the EIR also describes that much of these

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -30- November 2021
sediments and rocks are covered by relatively younger (within the last 10,000 years) Holocene-age sediments. According to the EIR, no paleontological resources have been discovered in Gilroy, likely due to the presence of these relatively recent Holocene deposits (Gilroy 2020a). The General Plan EIR did not identify impacts related to paleontological resources.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
2040 General
Plan EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
DEIR pp. 3-229
to 3-240
FEIR pp. 3-7 to
3-8
No No
Mitigation
Measures GHG-
1 and GHG-2
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
DEIR pp. 3-241
to 3-249 No No None

(a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. Climate change models predict changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, water availability, and rising sea levels, and these altered conditions can have impacts on natural and human systems in California that can affect the City of Gilroy’s temperature, water supply and quality, health and safety, flood risk, fire risk, and economic growth and stability (City of Gilroy, 2020a).

The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide. The State of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which seeks to reduce GHG emissions generated by California. The Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32 (Health & Safety Code, § 38501 et seq.) both seek to achieve 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020. Executive Order S-3-05 further requires that California’s GHG emissions be 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. AB 32 defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -31- November 2021
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing AB 32. In accordance with provisions of AB 32, CARB conducts an annual statewide GHG Emission Inventory that provides estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere by human activities within California.

In accordance with requirements of AB 32, CARB adopted an Initial Scoping Plan in 2008 and is required to update the scoping plan at least every five years. The First Update to the Scoping Plan, approved in 2014, established a 2030 emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The current (2017) Scoping Plan identifies a balanced mix of strategies to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit.

The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would have a significant and unavoidable GHG impact for the interim period until the City adopts and implements a qualified GHG reduction plan. Upon adoption of a qualified GHG reduction plan, GHG emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would ensure that a qualified GHG reduction plan is prepared in a timely manner. However, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the EIR indicated that implementation of the General Plan would incrementally contribute to cumulative global warming effects. The City’s 2040 General Plan states that the City shall adopt and implement a qualified GHG reduction plan within three years of the adoption of the 2040 General Plan. The EIR concludes that impact prior to adoption of the GHG reduction plan would be significant and unavoidable; however, this significant impact is considered interim because after the GHG reduction plan is adopted, impact accommodated by the General Plan buildout would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes goals and policies that would provide GHG emissions reduction benefit. Consumption of electrical energy, either directly or indirectly, and consumption of fossil fuel in vehicles are the anticipated primary sources of GHG emissions in Gilroy. Policies are focused on reducing emissions from these sources. The General Plan policies and programs are primarily organized by the GHG source sectors from which GHG reductions would be realized.

The General Plan EIR estimated the 2040 threshold of significance for GHG emissions is 1.93 MT CO 2 e per capita. The net GHG emissions in 2040 are equal to total annual 2040 buildout GHG emissions (Table 3.7-7, City of Gilroy 2020a) less legislative and regulatory emissions reductions or 204,738.10 MT CO 2 e. According to General Plan EIR, population would increase by 19,756 at buildout. The 2040 buildout rate of GHG emission is 204,738.10 MT CO 2 e/19,756 population, or 10.36 MT CO 2 e per capita. Therefore, GHG emissions at buildout would exceed the 2040 threshold of significance, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the proposed Gilroy 2040 General Plan policies and actions, including the GHG Reduction Plan, as well as planned implementation of statewide actions, would further reduce emissions.

The proposed project would result in an increase of four single-family residential units with three ADUs within the City. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential and commercial development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential development as described. The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet the California Building Code as well as compliance with City requirements for water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. These measures are consistent with those recommended for residential uses in the General Plan related to building and energy efficiency and water conservation. Thus, the project would not conflict with provisions of the General Plan.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -32- November 2021
Since the project size (and resulting GHG emissions) is within the total amount of potential residential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site or substantially more severe than impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, the project falls below the BAAQMD’s screening level of 56 single- family residential units for potential significant GHG emissions impacts (BAAQMD 2017). Thus, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15193.

(b) Conflicts with Applicable Plans. The General Plan did not identify conflicts with state plans, but as discussed above, the EIR indicated that Plan buildout would conflict with the applicable GHG reduction plan/policy/regulation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for the interim period until the City adopts and implements a qualified GHG reduction plan. Upon adoption of a qualified GHG reduction plan, the potential, significant impacts due to conflicts with the applicable GHG reduction plan/policy/regulation would be less than significant. Since the project size (and resulting GHG emissions) is within the total amount of potential residential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site or substantially more severe than impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15193.

9. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials? (City
Threshold 7a)
DEIR pp. 3-264
to 3-267 No No None
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? (City Threshold 7b)
DEIR pp. 3-264
to 3-267 No No None
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
¼ miles of an existing or proposed
school? (City Threshold 7c)
DEIR pp. 3-268
to 3-269 No No None
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
DEIR pp. 3-269
to 3-270 No No None

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -33- November 2021

9. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (City
Threshold 7d)
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (City
Threshold 7e)
DEIR pp. 3-270
to 3-271 No No None
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires? (City Threshold 7f)
DEIR pp. 3-271
to 3-274 No No None

(a-b) Use or Release of Hazardous Materials. The proposed project consists of residential land uses, which would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes, and would not result in the creation of a public health hazard.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of Gilroy 2040 General Plan goals and policies and continued compliance with regulatory requirements of hazardous material management and treatment would minimize risks to people and environmental resources. The EIR concluded that additional risks from General Plan buildout, due to the increase use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would pose a less-than-significant impact because of the foregoing reasons.

New development accommodated by the General Plan that utilizes hazardous materials or generates hazardous waste would be regulated pursuant to federal, state, and local laws to ensure proper transportation, handling, and disposal. Because the proposed residential project is a type of development analyzed under General Plan EIR buildout, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site.

No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -34- November 2021
(c-d) Exposure to Hazardous Materials. A search of Cortese List data resources, including databases managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor) and the State Water Resources Control Board (GeoTracker), was conducted. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan could result in exposure to hazardous materials due to proximity to contaminated sites. Potential sources for accidental release of hazardous materials include commercial and industrial businesses with aboveground or underground storage tanks or other containers for storing fuel, solvents, or other industrial-use chemicals. However, the EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant. While the subject property is located approximately 0.23 miles south of South Valley Middle School, the proposed project would not result in exposure to hazardous materials and would not result in stationary emissions. For these reasons, the project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(e) Airport Safety. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or air strip and would not be subjected to potential aircraft hazards.

(f) Emergency Response. Existing access to the project site is provided from Chestnut Street.

Subdivision of the project site would result in four new driveway access points off Chestnut Street.

The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response or evaluation plan, and would not result in an impact. The General Plan EIR also concluded that future development associated with the buildout of the 2040 Gilroy General Plan would increase population but would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted local and regional emergency response plans and evacuation plans. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(g) Wildland Fire Hazards. The project is located within an urbanized area within the City of Gilroy.

The closest high fire hazard area is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site according to the Fire Hazards Severity Zones maps published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE 2007). The General Plan EIR also concluded that impacts related to increased risk involving wildland fires would be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and programs, although the western hillside areas of the City pose a high fire hazard for the residents in that location. The project site is not located within hillside locations. For these reasons, and because the project is within the buildout estimations of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -35- November 2021

10. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality? (City
Thresholds 8a, 8f)
DEIR pp. 3-292
to 3-300 No No
Gilroy City Code
Chapter 27
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin? (City Threshold 8b)
DEIR pp. 3-312
to 3-313, 3-317
FEIR 3-10 to 3-
12 No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

DEIR pp. 3-292
to 3-300 No No
Gilroy City Code
Chapter 27
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; (City
Threshold 8c)
DEIR pp. 3-292
to 3-295 No No See above
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site; (City Threshold 8d)
DEIR pp. 3-295
to 3-297 No No See above
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; (City Threshold 8e) or
DEIR pp. 3-295
to 3-297 No No See above
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
(City Threshold 8g-h)
DEIR pp. 3-297
to 3-300 No No None
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pp. 3-297
to 3-300 No No None
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
DEIR pp. 3-312
to 3-313, 3-317
FEIR 3-12
No No None

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -36- November 2021
(a) Water Quality/Discharges. The project would not involve any discharges that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Within urbanized areas such as the City, pollutants frequently associated with stormwater include sediment, nutrients, oil and grease, heavy metals, and litter. The primary sources of stormwater pollution consist of contaminants such as oil, grease, pesticides, fertilizer, solid waste and sediment that are deposited on impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots, and driveways (Gilroy 2020a).

Urban runoff and other “non-point source” discharges are regulated by the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that has been implemented in two phases through the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Phase I regulations, effective since 1990, require NPDES permits for storm water discharges for certain specific industrial facilities and construction activities, and for municipalities with a population size greater than 100,000. Phase II regulations expand the NPDES program to include all municipalities with urbanized areas and municipalities with a population size greater than 10,000 and a population density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. Phase II regulations also expand the NPDES program to include construction sites of one to five acres. Non-point source pollutants also are regulated by Gilroy City Code Chapters 27C and 27D, which outlines the City’s regulations for implementing storm water quality management strategies consistent with NPDES requirements. The General Plan EIR indicates that the Revised Regional Storm Water Management Plan described previously outlines all of the measures that must be implemented by the City and by future development to comply with the NPDES water quality protection requirements. Standard conditions of permit approval include requirements that discharged water meet State Water Resources Control Board and/or Central Coast water board standards.

The City has also developed a Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) to fulfill the requirements of the Phase II NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (General Permit) and to reduce the volume of pollutants discharged in urban runoff. In compliance with the Phase II regulations, the City’s comprehensive SWMP is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to protect water quality.

Construction activity on project sites that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the State’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and SWPPP must be prepared prior to commencement of construction. Proposed grading and development on the project site would disturb more than 1 acre and, thus, the project would be subject to the Construction General Permit and preparation of a SWPPP.

The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations to protect water quality, impacts to water quality resulting from future development, including potential erosion and stormwater runoff, would be less than significant. The application of

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -37- November 2021
uniformly applied standards and regulations contained in Gilroy’s City Code regarding implementation of stormwater BMPs, grading requirements and implementation of erosion control plans (Chapter 27) would be required, as would preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, which would mitigate potential storm runoff water quality impacts as well as potential erosion and water quality impacts during excavation and construction as discussed above.

The project site is greater than one acre in size, and grading and subdivision improvements would be subject to preparation of a SWPPP. Compliance with regulations contained in the City’s Code regarding implementation of stormwater BMPs, grading requirements and implementation of erosion control plans and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, would mitigate potential storm runoff water quality and erosion impacts during excavation and construction as discussed above and would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not result in water quality impacts peculiar to the site or project with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Groundwater. The project site is located within a developed urban area. As discussed in the Utilities and Service Systems Section 19(b), the project would be adequately served by the City’s existing public water system that obtains potable water supplies from groundwater sources.

Domestic water supply in Gilroy is provided through groundwater extraction from nine wells. The City of Gilroy is in the Llagas Subbasin of the Gilroy-Hollister Groundwater Basin. The General Plan EIR reported that the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) has not identified the subbasin as in overdraft or projected to be in overdraft according to the Valley Water 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. However, DWR has ranked the Llagas Sub-basin as a high priority basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Act of 2014 noting that nitrate has impacted a significant number of private domestic wells due to historic and ongoing agricultural activities and septic systems.

The General Plan EIR indicates that while new development would increase water demand, groundwater supplies are projected to exceed demand in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry years through 2040. The EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Because the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(c[i-iii]) Drainage. The project site is located within a developed urban area. The project would create 24,284 square feet of impervious surfaces (approximately 53 percent of the site). Individual lots would be improved with bioretention areas to treat stormwater runoff prior to flowing to an underground storage to be detained and released into the City’s storm drainage system.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -38- November 2021
The General Plan EIR concluded that potential drainage impacts related to increased stormwater runoff would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and programs in addition to project-specific compliance with the City’s Storm Water Master Plan and Stormwater Management Guidance Manual. Compliance with these applicable plans and standards would assure that existing and future storm water facilities have sufficient capacity to collect and convey storm water, even during flooding events. The General Plan EIR also explains that future development would be required to comply with the Gilroy City Code requirements and Water Board detention standards in combination with applicable Valley Water requirements for development adjacent to Valley Water facilities, which would mitigate increases in impervious surfaces that could lead to flooding or exceed the capacity of storm water facilities. This compliance would ensure that storm water facilities downstream of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary would have capacity to transport storm water runoff from the proposed project during 100-year storm events.

The project would not significantly alter existing drainage patterns. The project drainage plan has been prepared in accordance with City requirements. In addition, uniformly applied development standards included as project conditions of approval require preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) by a registered civil engineer. The SWMP shall analyze the existing and ultimate conditions and facilities, and the study shall include all off-site tributary areas, and shall be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).

The standard condition of approval requires that existing offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity not be altered by the development. Thus, the project would also be consistent with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (CCRWQCB) post- construction requirements. As a result of these site design and engineering features and compliance with regional and local stormwater regulations, the proposed project would not result in significant drainage impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project with implementation of uniformly applied development standards related to stormwater management. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(c [iv], d) Flood Hazard Areas and Risk of Release of Pollutants. According to the Flood Risk Areas map included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone (Gilroy 2020a). The project site is located in an area designated as Flood Zone X, which is not a 100-year flood zone or considered a special hazard flood zone per the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FEMA 2009). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows in a 100-year flood zone. The project site is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Coyote Lake, the nearest major body of water, and therefore, impacts associated with seiches would not occur. Based on the distance of the project site from the Pacific Ocean (approximately 17 miles) and the elevation of the site, coastal hazards such as a tsunami, extreme high tides, and sea level rise would not affect the project site.

The risk of release of pollutants due to these natural phenomena is very low.

The General Plan EIR concludes that, through the implementation of General Plan policies related to flood control and adherence to other City plans and regulations, future development would not result in substantial risk of exposure of structures or people to flood hazards and impacts would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also concluded that the overall risk of dam failure from the Uvas Dam, Chesbro Dam, or Anderson Dam is low. Therefore, risks to future development within the

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -39- November 2021
proposed Urban Growth Boundary would likewise be low, and the impact would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant flood hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project. For these reasons, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(e) Conflict with Plans. The project site is not located adjacent to a water course or water body and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. The project site is within the Llagas groundwater subbasin which is covered by the Valley Water Groundwater Management Plan adopted in 2016. The groundwater management plan includes groundwater supply management programs aimed to replenish the area’s groundwater basins, sustain groundwater supplies, help mitigate groundwater overdraft, and sustain storage reserves for dry period. As discussed in Utilities and Service Systems Section 19(b), the project would connect to the City’s public water system which relies on groundwater as a primary source of water. The Valley Water Groundwater Management Plan recognizes that the City of Gilroy is responsible for maintaining its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to evaluate and manage its water supply.

The General Plan EIR concludes that development associated with the General Plan may result in an increase in water demand within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, but not beyond that identified in the UWMP. The EIR also concludes that the buildout of the General Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing water quality control and sustainable groundwater management plans, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

11. LAND USE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? (City Threshold 9a) FEIR pp 2-42 No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect? (City Thresholds 9b)
None No No None

(a) Physically Divide an Established Community. The project site is located within a developed residential area of the City and the project would not physically divide an established community.

The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes an urban growth boundary within which the project site is located. Because the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -40- November 2021
regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Conflict with Policies and Regulations. The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City’s 2040 General Plan with an allowed density of 3-8 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Single-Family Residential (R1). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. According to the General Plan, this designation “is applied to areas of predominantly single family detached dwellings, with typical lot sizes ranging from 5,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet. Appropriate residential uses include single family detached homes and secondary (“accessory”) dwelling units that comply with City standards” (Gilroy 2020c). The project site is located within the single-family residential district per Chapter 30 of Gilroy City Code. Article V of this Chapter provides permitted uses, site and building requirements, maximum density, and site design requirements within the district.

The proposed use is consistent with General Plan and zoning district land use designations as discussed in section IV.B and C (Environmental Checklist). Based on the analyses contained in this Environmental Checklist and a review of the City’s 2040 General Plan, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with any policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and the project would not result in land use impacts peculiar to the site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? (City
Thresholds 10a)
DEIR pp. 3-320
to 3-322 No No None
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?
DEIR pp. 3-320
to 3-322 No No None

a-b) Loss of Mineral Resources. The General Plan EIR describes two mineral resource areas within the greater Gilroy and southern Santa Clara County areas. The Verne D. Freeman Sr. quarry is located outside of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary in unincorporated Santa Clara County and resources along Uvas Creek are no longer available for extraction due to the provisions and implementation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan (Gilroy 2020a). Therefore, the EIR concluded that General Plan buildout would have no impact on known mineral resources. The proposed project, which is captured in the

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -41- November 2021
General Plan buildout and City’s Urban Growth Boundary, would have no impact to mineral resources. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13. NOISE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies? (City
Thresholds 11a, 11c)
DEIR pp. 3-336
to 3-345 No No
General Plan
Policies PH 6.10,
PH 6.11, and PH

6.12 Article XVI of
the Gilroy City
Code
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels? (City Thresholds 11b)
DEIR pp. 3-346 No No None
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Not Applicable No No None

(a) Noise Increases. The 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts regarding exposure to noise. In particular, Goal PH 6 aims to protect residents from exposure to excessive noise through responsive land use planning, especially regarding noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and housing for seniors. Policy PH 6.1 establishes a physical development pattern that promotes residential neighborhoods and development and park areas within the quietest areas of the community. The proposed project and site would align with this policy. Policy 6.2 requires a review of development proposals to assure consistency with noise standards by using the noise contour maps established in the EIR and requires additional noise studies needed for proposed development. Policy 6.7 requires new residential development to comply with the City’s noise standards.

The project site is located in a relatively quiet residential neighborhood, and the primary noise source within the project area is traffic noise along Monterey Road that is west of the project site. According to maps prepared for the General Plan EIR, the project site is located outside of the 65 - 70-dBA noise

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -42- November 2021
contour for both existing and future (i.e., 2040) conditions (Gilroy 2020a). The General Plan indicates that exterior noise levels to 60-dBA are generally acceptable sound levels for residential properties.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of Plan policies and actions, as well as future project-level noise assessments, exposure to noise would be considered less than significant. Given that the project would be subject to potential future exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA, no impacts related to exposure to noise levels that exceed local or state standards would occur.

The proposed project would result in new residential development within an area that is a developed residential area. Residential uses would not typically be associated with substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent noise increases not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR.

There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during grading and construction of the project. Noise impacts resulting from construction would depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, as well as existing ambient noise levels. Noise generated during construction would vary throughout the construction period and on any given day, depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. Sensitive noise receptors are located at the residences adjacent to the project site. However, as explained in the General Plan EIR, construction sound levels would be intermittent and varied through a single day as well as the duration of project construction.

As mentioned above, the 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts of increased noise resulting from construction or operation of development projects (PH 6.10, PH 6.11, PH 6.12). The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from future development would be less than significant. Furthermore, Article XVI of the Gilroy City Code limits the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day (7:00am to 7:00pm Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 7:00 pm on Saturdays). These policies and regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels and would be considered uniformly applied regulations to which the proposed project would be subject to compliance. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding permanent or temporary increases in noise. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Vibration. The proposed residential use would not result in generation of or exposure to vibration as there are no known sources of vibration. There would be no construction methods or equipment used that would generate excessive vibration. The General Plan EIR indicates that General Plan Policy PH 6.12 requires a vibration impact assessment for proposed development projects in which heavy- duty construction equipment would be used (e.g. pile driving, bulldozing) within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor. Policy PH 6.13 requires proposed residential and commercial

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -43- November 2021
projects located within 200 feet of existing major freeways and railroad lines to conduct a ground vibration and vibration noise evaluation consistent with City-approved methodologies. Neither of these situations are applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding permanent or temporary increases in noise. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(e-f) Airport Noise. The project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip.

14. POPULATION
AND HOUSING Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
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)? (City Threshold 12a)
DEIR pp. 2-12 to
2-15 Not Applicable Not Applicable None
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (City
Threshold 12b)
DEIR pp. 4.2-14
to 4.2-15 Not Applicable Not Applicable None

(a) Inducement of Substantial Population Growth. The 2040 General Plan EIR estimated population and housing increases that could result from potential development and buildout; the EIR estimated an additional 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-family) throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The EIR also projects an estimated 21,434 new jobs by 2040. The EIR evaluated growth-inducing impacts of the General Plan, and indicated that growth associated with the 2040 Gilroy General Plan would not occur beyond the existing Urban Growth Boundary and that the Urban Service Area Boundary and the Urban Growth Boundary would serve as the primary growth management policy mechanism in the 2040 General Plan.

The City had a population of 55,928 people as of January 1, 2019 as reported in the General Plan EIR (Gilroy 2020a). The City’s population as of January 1, 2021 was 56,599 (California Department of Finance 2021). The project would include construction of up to four new dwelling units with three ADUs. The proposed residential units are within the total remaining unbuilt residential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR; see discussion in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist). Based on the City’s existing average household size of 3.27, the proposed project would result in a maximum population increase of approximately 23 people, resulting in a total City population of 56,622 residents when added to the City’s existing population. This is within the General Plan’s population

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -44- November 2021
forecast of 75,684 for the for the year 2040. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially induce unplanned population growth. Since the potential population growth resulting from the proposed project would fall within the total level of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and is consistent with current regional forecasts, the project would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Displacement of Existing Housing or People. No housing units exist on the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in displacement of housing or residents. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical 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? (City Threshold
13a)
DEIR pp. 3-361
to 3-364
FEIR pp. 3-13
No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
Police protection? (City Threshold
13b)
DEIR pp. 3-355
to 3-556
FEIR pp. 3-13
No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
Schools? (City Threshold 13c) DEIR pp. 3-366
to 3-370 No No
Payment of
School Impact
Fees
Parks? (City Threshold 13d) DEIR pp. 3-379
to 3-387 No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
Other public facilities? (City
Threshold 13e) Not Applicable No No None

Fire Protection, Police Protection, and School Facilities. As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered the construction of approximately 6,477 new residential units within the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a), and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the project’s proposed maximum of four residential units with three ADUs would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for fire protection and school

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -45- November 2021
enrollments, and there would be no impact on police protection. Specifically, the EIR concluded that the current size of the City’s police station is adequately sized to accommodate the increase in staff required from anticipated population increases under the General Plan buildout. Thus, construction of any new police facilities would not be warranted with General Plan buildout. The General Plan EIR also indicates that a fourth fire station may be required to serve development under the General Plan for which site-specific impacts would be evaluated after the site is selected. The EIR concluded that impacts related to fire protection and new facilities would be less than significant as fire facilities are permitted in most city zones. Additionally, General Plan Policy PFS 1.11 explains that applicants for new development are required to pay Development Impact Fees for public facilities (including fire protection services). The Gilroy Unified School District collects Level I fees in accordance with the school district’s Developer Fee Justification Study (Gilroy Unified School District 2020). Future anticipated development under the buildout of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would be responsible for the payment of the fees. The required fees for fire protection, police protection, and school facilities would be considered an application of uniformly applied development standards.

Because the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Parks and Recreation. See Section 16 below regarding impacts to parks and recreational facilities.

16. RECREATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated? (City Threshold 13d)
DEIR pp. 3-379
to 3-387 No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities?
DEIR pp. 3-379
to 3-387 No No None

(a) Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities. The City has responsibility for management, maintenance and operation of over 299 acres of parks and open space lands and oversees development of new parks and improvements within City-owned parks, open space, and community facilities (Gilroy 2020a). In the project area, the San Ysidro Park provides neighborhood park amenities to local residents including sports courts, hiking, jogging path, turf area, picnic tables, grilling areas, and public restrooms.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -46- November 2021

As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 6,477 new residential units within the City by the year 2040, and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses states that the City does not meet its goal for parklands of 5.0 acres per 1,000 and that the City would need a total of 367 additional acres of developed parkland to accommodate the total population anticipated under the City’s 2040 General Plan buildout conditions. However, as the EIR concludes, implementation of 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on park and recreational facilities, as well as compliance with local regulations, would ensure that impacts to parks and recreational facilities resulting from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant.

General Plan Policy PFS 1.11 explains that applicants for new development are required to pay Development Impact Fees for public facilities (including parks). The required fees for park expansion and improvements would be considered an application of uniformly applied development standards.

The EIR also concludes that planning and prioritization, as required by General Plan policies, would help to ensure that existing facilities would not be substantially impacted either physically or environmentally by anticipated population growth and buildout under the proposed Gilroy 2040 General Plan. Thus, the proposed project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees and would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) New Recreational Facilities. The proposed project does not include public recreational facilities or specifically require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. However, as indicated above, the City’s General Plan provides programs and policies that call for the expansion and improvement of existing City parks and recreational spaces to accommodate future buildout. The EIR concludes that potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities with growth accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

17. TRANSPORTATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (City
Threshold 14f)
DEIR pp. 3-389
to 3-399, 3-408
to 3-411, 3-421
to 3-435
No No None

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -47- November 2021

17. TRANSPORTATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
DEIR pp. 3-389,
3-411 to 3-421 No No None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)? (City
Threshold 14c)
No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? (City Threshold 14d)
DEIR pp. 3-270
to 3-271 No No None

(a) Conflict with Circulation Plan, Policy, or Ordinance. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan Policy M 1.7 requires the reduction of VMT by developing a transportation network that makes it convenient to use transit, ride a bicycle, walk, or use other non-automobile modes of transportation. Consistent with this policy, average VMT projections for the City of Gilroy would be reduced by the implementation of measures that reduce the total number of miles traveled, or trips, per person, including changes to the City’s travel demand management program, expanded transit, and multimodal transportation system improvements, such as: signal timing changes, signal synchronization, adaptive traffic signal systems, bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure improvements, and streetscape projects to enhance the pedestrian environment. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not result in conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The General Plan EIR also identified intersection improvements.

The proposed project would provide onsite sidewalks, and the project site is located in proximity to existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Both Lewis Street and Chestnut Street are connected to the area’s pedestrian sidewalk network. Forest Street, which is approximately 250 feet west of the project site, is developed with a Class II bike lane, and the Valley Transportation Authority has two bus stops on Monterey Road, approximately 0.25-mile from the project site. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. Because the proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in a more severe significant impact related to conflicts with transportation plans or ordinances than otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in an impact peculiar to the project or site. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines. Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines at the end of 2018 added a new question of whether or not a project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -48- November 2021
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This is a new section that codifies the switch from level of service (LOS) to VMT as the metric for transportation analysis pursuant to state legislation adopted in 2013. In September 2013 Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 which made significant changes to how transportation impacts are to be assessed under CEQA. SB 743 directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a new metric to replace LOS as a measure of impact significance and suggests vehicle miles travelled as that metric. According to the legislation, upon certification of the guidelines, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS shall not be considered a significant impact (Section 21009(a)(2)). SB 743 also creates a new CEQA exemption for certain projects that are consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) indicates that development projects that exceed an applicable VMT threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less-than- significant transportation impact.

The City’s General Plan EIR indicates that the City of Gilroy CEQA thresholds of significance no longer apply as SB 743 requirements replaced those thresholds with VMT requirements. The VMT analysis in the General Plan EIR considers OPR’s recommended 15 percent below baseline conditions as the threshold to identify potential VMT impacts. The City’s Draft VMT Guidelines have established an impact threshold of 15 percent below the 2017 baseline citywide average daily residential VMT of

16.46 VMT per capita and average daily employment VMT of 20.14 VMT per job. Therefore, the impact of growth on transportation would be considered significant if it results in VMT per capita or per job that is greater than either or both average daily 13.99 VMT per capita and average daily 17.12 VMT per job.

The results of the VMT evaluation indicate that the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would result in a decrease in average daily residential VMT (-1.84 VMT per capita) and an increase in average daily employment VMT (+1.80 VMT per job) compared to the 2017 baseline citywide average VMT. Both the residential VMT and employment VMT projections under the Gilroy 2040 General Plan conditions would be above the threshold established by the City, resulting in a significant impact. The EIR includes a mitigation measure for the City to update its Transportation Demand Management Program (Gilroy City Code Chapter 25B) and that implementation of this measure in addition to implementation of Gilroy 2040 General Plan goals, policies and programs would reduce VMT. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan Policy M 1.7 requires the reduction of VMT by developing a transportation network that makes it convenient to use transit, ride a bicycle, walk, or use other non-automobile modes of transportation. Consistent with this policy, average VMT projections for the City of Gilroy would be reduced by the implementation of measures that reduce the total number of miles traveled, or trips, per person. However, the EIR concluded that there is no guarantee that these measures would reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact of VMT resulting from implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would be significant and unavoidable.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -49- November 2021
As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 6,477 new residential units within the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a), and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in a more severe significant impact related to VMT than otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or an impact peculiar to the project or site.

Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(c, d) Design-Safety and Emergency Access. The project would be designed in accordance with City requirements, and there are no access designs that would substantially increase hazards. The project would be designed in accordance with City police and fire department requirements and would provide for adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in increased hazards related to project design and would not provide inadequate emergency access.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
2040 General
Plan EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:

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:
a) 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
FEIR pp 2-8 to
2-10 Not Applicable Not Applicable None
b) 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 the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
FEIR pp 2-8 to
2-10 Not Applicable Not Applicable
Standard
Planning
Condition of
Approval for
unanticipated
discovery of
archaeological
resource

State Assembly Bill 52, effective July 1, 2015, recognizes that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions,

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -50- November 2021
heritages, and identities. The law establishes a new category of resources in the California Environmental Quality Act called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Public Resources Code section 21074 defines a “tribal cultural resource” as either:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(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 Section 5024.1.

(a-b) Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. The California Public Resources Code section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. No such request has been made to the City of Gilroy, and thus notification and consultation are not required. The General Plan EIR did not identify any tribal cultural resources within the City.

As discussed in Section 5 of this Environmental Checklist, the project site is not located within an area identified as being sensitive for archaeological resources (City of Gilroy 2020a). Standard planning conditions of approval also apply to the project that require a procedure to follow in the event that unknown archaeological and/or tribal cultural materials are unearthed during construction. Thus, the project would not result in an impact on tribal cultural resources.

19. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment
facilities, or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or which could cause
significant environmental effects?
DEIR pp. 3-442
to 3-443, 3-446
to 3-449, 3-453
No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
DEIR pp. 3-312
to 3-319 No No None

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -51- November 2021

19. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years? (City Thresholds
15b and 15d)
FEIR pp. 3-14
c) 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? (City Thresholds 15b
and 15e)
DEIR pp. 3-446
to 3-449
FEIR pp. 3-14
No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals? (City
Threshold 15f)
DEIR pp. 3-453
to 3-456 No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
DEIR pp. 3-453
to 3-456 No No None

(a) Relocation or Construction of Utilities. The proposed project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that no new or expanded water, wastewater or storm drainage facilities would be needed to serve development resulting from implementation of the General Plan.

The City’s wastewater treatment facility would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth; see subsection (c) below. Because the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR the proposed project would not result in more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(b) Water Supply. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Gilroy Department of Public Works. The City’s water is supplied from local groundwater sources. The proposed residences would be individually connected to an existing water main within Chestnut Street, immediately north of the project site.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -52- November 2021

The City’s General Plan EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of impacts of groundwater demand within the City’s service area, including potential buildout accommodated by the General Plan. The General Plan EIR predicted that water supplies would be adequate in normal years to serve estimated growth within the City of Gilroy water service area. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to the City’s groundwater supply would be less than significant because the water demand associated with the General Plan buildout would not surpass groundwater demand estimates within the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan which is described in greater detail below. Measures are identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce demand, and support recycling of water.

In addition to the City’s 2040 General Plan, the City prepared and adopted its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP projects the City’s total reliable water supply for normal years at approximately 16,840 million gallons or 51,679 acre-feet per year. As shown in Tables 7-2, 7- 3, and 7-4 of the UWMP, water supply is projected to exceed demand in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry years through 2040. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan may increase water demand for new and existing development within the Urban Growth Boundary, but not beyond the demand identified in the UWMP. To calculate the City’s water demand through the UWMP planning horizon of 2040, the City’s 2020 urban water use target of 133 gallons per capita per day was applied to the projected population set forth in the 2016 Draft General Plan Update of 95,105. The revised Urban Growth Boundary in the General Plan Update reduced the projected 2040 population of approximately 75,684. With a per capita multiplier of 133 gallons per capita per day, the projected demand in 2040 would be approximately 10.1 million gallons per day or approximately 3,687 million gallons per year (11,425 acre-feet per year). Therefore, any increase in water demand resulting from buildout of the 2040 General Plan would be less than that identified in the UWMP.

The proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to availability of water supplies not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183

(c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project would be served by existing wastewater treatment utilities; the proposed residences would connect to an existing sewer main within Chestnut Street, immediately north of the project site. Collected sewer flows generated by the City are generally conveyed south and to the east to the South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA).

The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of wastewater management goals and policies regarding ongoing maintenance, treatment, and water conservation would reduce the impact of the General Plan’s project buildout. However, the EIR states that these goals and policies would not avoid the need for new or expanded wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Future development consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan buildout estimations could result in an increase in the demand for wastewater services that could potentially exceed the capacity of the existing and

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -53- November 2021
planned sanitary sewer system and treatment plan. Potential construction of new wastewater infrastructure could result in significant environmental impacts. However, the EIR concluded that expected construction and operation of new sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment facilities would have similar impacts as other types of new development within the City. Site-specific environmental impacts would be required to be analyzed once project development plans are proposed for these facilities. General Plan policies and mitigation measures would serve to avoid or reduce potential impacts from any proposed sewer system and wastewater treatment facilities. The General Plan EIR also reports that implementation of the General Plan would require new or expanded wastewater facilities, but not beyond those identified in the City of Gilroy Sewer System Master Plan as a result of the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. Therefore, the EIR concluded that the impacts associated with the provision of wastewater service would be less than significant.

The proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units within the General Plan buildout projections. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for wastewater treatment, even considering the potential for future sanitary system and wastewater system development. Because the size of the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site., no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

(d-e) Solid Waste Disposal. The project would be served by existing utilities, including solid waste disposal services. The General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s landfill would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth. As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of new residential units in the City with an estimated buildout of 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-family) throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. The size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the project would comply with local, state, and federal solid waste reduction statues and regulations. The project would also be required to comply with city and county waste reduction programs and policies aimed to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site. No further environmental analysis is required regarding solid waste pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -54- November 2021

20. WILDFIRE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation?
DEIR pp. 3-271 No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None

(a) Emergency Plans. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (CAL FIRE 2007). See also Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 9(f).

(b-d) Wildfire Impacts and Exposure. The 2019 CEQA Guidelines amendment added a question regarding wildfire impacts and exposure. The General Plan EIR notes that the western hillside area is the only area of the City subject to potentially high fire hazards. The project site is not located in or near the western hillside area or a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; see also Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 9(g). The site is flat and surrounding by development in an urban setting. Therefore, no impacts related to wildfire would occur.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -55- November 2021

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS

OF SIGNIFICANCE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
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, substantially
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?
DEIR pp. 3-138
to 3-149, 3-153,
3-169 to 3-171
to 3-175, FEIR
pp. 3-5 to 3-6

No No
GP Action
NRC2.2.1 &
Project
Assessment
Protocols for
Special Status
Species; GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
b) 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 the
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
DEIR pp 4-2 to
4-11 No No None
c) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DEIR pp. 3-193
to 3-202, 3-264
to 3-274, 3-336
to 3-346
No No None

(a) Quality of the Environment. The project would not degrade the quality of the environment or otherwise affect fish and wildlife habitat with implementation of uniformly applied development standards as discussed in Section 4 (Biological Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review. As discussed in Section 5 (Cultural Resources), the project would have no significant effect on cultural resources with implementation of uniformly applied development standards, regulations, and policies, and would not result in elimination of important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory.

(b) Cumulative Impacts. Chapter 4.0 of the General Plan EIR describes potential cumulative impacts to each impact area and provides analysis and a determination as to whether the proposed General Plan’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable. This chapter of the EIR concludes that there would be cumulatively considerable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation (related to VMT). The EIR also notes that potential impacts to air quality, GHG

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -56- November 2021
emissions and noise are inherently considered in a cumulative context and therefore cumulative analysis is covered in their respective topic sections.

As discussed in Section 2 (Agricultural Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review, the proposed project would not result in conversion of agricultural or forest lands, as these resources are not present on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts to agricultural resources identified in the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan concluded that VMT resulting from General Plan buildout would be cumulatively considerable. Because the proposed project is within the amount of development considered in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

(c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. No environmental effects have been identified that would have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

V. REFERENCES

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

BAAQMD. 2017b. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 2017. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder (online tool). 2018. Accessed July 30, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp .

California Department of Finance. May 2021. “E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2021.” Accessed August 30,
2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ .

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA Map. November 2007. Accessed August 9,

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -57- November 2021
2021. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards- building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor Data Management System. Accessed August 12, 2021. https://dtsc.ca.gov/your-envirostor/ .

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. GeoTracker Data Management System.

Accessed August 12, 2021. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

City of Gilroy. 2040 General Plan and EIR. 2020:
a. June 2020. Gilroy 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2015082014. Dated June 22, 2020.
b. September 2020. Gilroy 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2015082014. Dated September 24, 2020.
c. November 2020. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan. Adopted November 2, 2020. Available online at https://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan .

City of Gilroy.
- City Code (various chapters as referenced in text). Available online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/ .
- Urban Water Management Plan. 2015. Accessed August 10, 2021. Available online at: http://www.ci.gilroy.ca.us/265/Water-Management-Plan . - May 2004. Thresholds of Significance, Final. Adopted May 3, 2004. Prepared by EMC Planning Group, Inc.
- 2004a. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5253/Park-and-Recreation- Systems-Master-Plan---June-2002.
- 2004b. Sewer System Master Plan. 2004. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5254/Sanitary-Sewer-Master- Plan---May-2004.
- 2004c. Water System Master Plan. 2004. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5257/Water-System-Master- Plan---May-2004.
- 2003. Fire Department Memorandum. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5258/Gilroy-Fire-Master-Plan- Update---September-2003.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (online tool). Accessed August 12, 2021. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home .

Gilroy Unified School District. 2020. Developer Fee Justification Study Gilroy Unified School District.

Accessed August 19, 2021. https://www.gilroyunified.org/fs/resource- manager/view/3cc6733f-ec1d-427c-95f4-5185d0ee2a9c.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -58- November 2021

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2016. Biological Resources Report for 395 Lewis Street Property.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2017. Arborist Report for 395 Lewis Redevelopment Project.

Mark Design Group. 2018. Nguyen’s Land Development (project plan set).

Mark Design Group. Response to City of Gilroy Staff Comments dated July 15, 2020.

Santa Clara County. 2021. Maps and GIS Data – GIS Mapping Portal. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html .

Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. 2018. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential Development 395 Lewis Street.

Preparation: Dudek in association with the City of Gilroy Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Karen L. Garner

DIRECTOR

Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org

DATE: January 20, 2022

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: 395 Lewis Street 4-lot Subdivision, Tentative Map (TM 20-01, 20010014) and Architectural and Site Review (AS 20-02,
20010012)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission:

a) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841- 03-062) into four parcels (File Number TM 20-01); and

b) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of an Architectural and Site Review Permit to allow construction of four (4) two-story single-family homes on property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) following approval of Tentative Map file number TM 20-01 to subdivide the property into four (4) single family parcels (File Number AS 20-02).

BACKGROUND:

Project Description: The proposed project requires approval of a tentative (parcel) map and an architectural and site review permit. The proposed parcel map would subdivide an existing vacant 1.05-acre (45,816 square feet) lot into four (4) single-family residential lots (Attachment 1). As illustrated in the architectural plans (Attachment 2), each new lot would be developed with a two-story single-family home and three of the lots would each be developed with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Lots 1, 2, and 3 would each be 8,363 square feet in area, while Lot 4 would be 12,155 square feet in area. The project would install frontage improvements (e.g., sidewalk, curb, and gutter) and dedicate street right-of-way to widen Chestnut Street by approximately 21.5

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

2 feet. The net project site area, after deducting the right of way dedication, totals 37,245 square feet.

The project site is bounded by Lewis Street to the south, Chestnut Street to the east, and Upper Miller Slough to the west. The project site is surrounded by residential uses.

San Ysidro City Park is located approximately 700 feet east of the project site.

LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site Vacant Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family North Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R3 Medium Density South Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family East Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family and R2 Two-Family
West Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family

Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the environmental checklist prepared for this project (on file with the Community Development Department), the project has been deemed statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning). The project has also been deemed categorically exempt, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions).

ANALYSIS:

The proposed project requires tentative map approval by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and Architectural and Site Review Permit approval by the community development director or designee. Staff is recommending that both entitlements be processed concurrently by the Planning Commission and the City Council since the Architectural and Site Review Permit approval is contingent on approval of the tentative (parcel) map.

General Plan Consistency: The 2040 General Plan land use designation of the site is Low Density Residential. The project would result in a residential density of approximately four (4) dwelling units per acre (du/a), consistent with the allowed density of 3-8 du/a. The proposed 4-lot subdivision, site layout, and architectural design is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

General Plan Goal / Policy Consistency Analysis

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

3 Goal LU 1 Protect and enhance Gilroy’s
quality of life and unique identity while
continuing to grow and change.

The project would develop an
underutilized property with residential
uses that have been designed with
architectural features that will enhance
the residential neighborhood.

LU 1.1 Pattern of Development:

Ensure an orderly, contiguous pattern of
development that prioritizes infill
development, phases new development,
encourages compactness and efficiency,
preserves surrounding open space and
agricultural resources, and avoids land
use incompatibilities
The proposed infill project will be
compatible with the surrounding
residential uses. The site plan has
been designed to comply with the
required 35-foot riparian setback from
the Upper Miller Slough’s top of bank,
a category 2 stream.

Goal LU 3 Provide a variety of housing
types that offer choices for Gilroy
residents and create complete, livable
neighborhoods
The four single-family homes and three
accessory dwelling units will provide a
variety of housing types on a site that
is currently undeveloped.

LU 3.1 Existing Neighborhoods:

Maintain and enhance the quality of
existing residential neighborhoods,
ensuring adequate public facilities such
as parks, schools, streets, water supply,
and drainage
As provided in the environmental
review checklist for the project, the site
will be served by adequate public
facilities such as parks, schools,
streets, and water supply. The project
drainage plan has been prepared in
accordance with City requirements.

LU 3.4 Compatible Lotting Pattern: For
infill projects where there is an
established pattern of lot sizes abutting a
project site, new development should
reflect the existing lotting pattern,
particularly the lot width of parcels
directly across an existing street.

The lotting pattern is consistent with
residential properties to the south,
east, and west. The site to the north is
currently underutilized. The proposed
residences would be centrally located
within the newly created parcels and
face Chestnut Street. The residences
would have front yard setbacks of at
least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at
least 35 feet, and side yard setbacks of
at least 6 feet.

Habitat Plan compliance: Pursuant to the Habitat Agency Geobrowser, the site is urbanized and not located within a special fee zone area. Therefore, only standard habitat agency fees (nitrogen deposition) would be applied. As discussed in the attached Biological Resources Report and CEQA checklist, the proposed project is adjacent to the Miller Slough, an ephemeral stream. Although the project is not located within any special Habitat Plan permit area, the Plan does recommend a 35-foot

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

4 setback from the top of bank of riparian corridors. The proposed project meets the recommended setback of 35 feet from the Miller Slough’s top of bank, exceeding the City of Gilroy’s Stream Protection Policy that requires a 20-foot setback from the top of bank for residential development.

Tentative Map Review: Pursuant to Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 21.41 (Action on tentative map), the planning commission shall after considering all reports, recommendations, comments and opinions, transmit its recommendation for approval or conditional approval, to the city council within sixty (60) days from the date of its decision. The tentative map may be denied only if the property as proposed to be developed would conflict with the City code, statute, law or other valid regulation, or if the land is subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation. A final map is not required for a parcel map under Section 66426 of the Subdivision Map Act.

Tentative Map Analysis: The project has been reviewed by all City departments and applicable agencies. Based on this review, conditions of approval have been prepared in conformance with the requirements of City Code. Residential subdivisions must comply with Chapter 21, Subdivisions and Land Development. The property is not subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation and the project is consistent with City Code as follows:

1. Flood Zone: The project site is located in an area designated as Flood Zone X, which is not a 100-year flood zone or considered a special hazard flood zone per the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FEMA 2009).

2. Density: The project would result in a residential density of approximately four (4) dwelling units per acre (du/a), consistent with the General Plan allowed density of 3-8 du/a.

3. Lot Sizes: Lots 1, 2, and 3 would each be 8,363 square feet in area, while Lot 4 would be 12,155 square feet in area, consistent with minimum 6,660 square foot lot size for the R1 district.

4. Site Layout: The proposed single-family residences would be centrally located within the newly created parcels and face Chestnut Street. The residences would be consistent with setbacks for the R1 zoning district with front yard setbacks of at least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at least 35 feet, and side yard setbacks of at least 6 feet. The site plan has been designed to comply with the required 35-foot riparian setback from the Upper Miller Slough’s top of bank, a category 2 stream.

5. Access and Parking. Each parcel would be accessed via new driveways off Chestnut Street. Each residence includes an attached two-car garage.

6. Street Frontage: Each lot would provide a minimum 40 feet of street frontage on Chestnut Street.

7. Utilities: The project would connect to the existing City of Gilroy water and sewer mains east of the site within Chestnut Street. The residences would also connect

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

5 to existing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas main and electrical pole south of the site on Lewis Street.

8. Grading. The project proposes 299 cubic yards (cy) of fill and 75 cy of cut, for a net fill (import) of 224 cy earth material.

9. Stormwater Management. The project would create 24,284 square feet of impervious surfaces (approximately 53 percent of the site). Individual lots would be improved with bioretention areas to treat stormwater runoff prior to flowing to an underground storage to be detained and released into the public system.

10. Tree Removal and Landscaping. The project site consists of two protected trees, one of which would be preserved. The requested tree removal of one (1) coast live oak tree is consistent with the City’s Code allowance for such removal. The project proposes to plant 24 new trees along the perimeter of the site. Landscaping also includes the planting of various shrubs, groundcover, and grass. Irrigation for landscaping will be required to comply with the City’s water efficient irrigation standards.

Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant to staff’s analysis, the following findings can be made in support of a Planning Commission recommendation of approval of the requested Parcel Map (TM 20-01), as conditioned in the attached resolution.

a) The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act. c) Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed project are in proximity to the site.
d) There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project which is statutorily and categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183 and section 15315.

Architectural and Site Review: Pursuant to GCC Section 30.50.41(a) (Architectural and Site Review Permits), the community development director or designee shall review and may issue architectural and site approval for development of four (4) or more single-family residential parcels which have been created from the same parcel map.

Architectural and Site Permit Analysis: Lots 1, 2, and 3 would each include construction of a 3,193 square-foot single-family home with attached garage and a 631 square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Lot 4 would be developed with a 3,410 square-foot single-family home with attached garage (no ADU). The homes would have front yard setbacks of at least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at least 35 feet, and side yard setbacks of at least 6 feet. Residential homes on Lots 1-3 are proposed to be

28.5 feet in height, and the Lot 4 residence is proposed to be 28 feet in height. The application is consistent with all objective development standards for single-family homes in the R1 single-family residential district. The City does not have objective

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

6 architectural design standards for single-family homes; however, the proposal has been designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.

Architectural and Site Permit Findings: Pursuant to staff’s analysis, the following findings can be made in support of a Planning Commission recommendation of approval of the requested Architectural and Site Review Permit (AS 20-02), as conditioned in the attached resolution.

1. The proposed development is permitted and in conformance with the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance development standards including height, setbacks, parking and landscaping, and other adopted policies of the City of Gilroy.

2. The proposed development would be consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Gilroy General Plan in that the residential land use is an allowed use in the single-family residential district.

3. The proposed development would not impair the integrity and character of the area surrounding and in the vicinity of the subject property given that the project has been designed to comply with all city development standards, minimizes grading and tree impacts, and proposes a residential design that is compatible with the neighborhood character.

4. The subject site would be served by streets and highways adequate in width and structure to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use will generate, given that the project will be required to dedicate street right-of-way to widen Chestnut Street by approximately 21.5 feet..

5. The subject site would be provided with adequate sewerage, water, fire protection and storm drainage facilities.

6. The proposed development/use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structure or to the public health, safety or general welfare, given that the project would require a building permit and has been designed to comply with all applicable city development standards.

Noticing: On January 6, 2022, notices of this Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, and on January 7, 2022, the project was published in the Gilroy Dispatch. In addition, the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage.

Next Steps: The recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to City Council within 50 days. Upon City Council approval, the Engineering Department would complete the process of signing and recording the Parcel Map.

Attachments:

1. 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 2022-01-13

2. 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01

3. vicinity map

4. TM 20-01 PC reso

5. AS 20-02 PC reso

6. 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21

7. Arborist Report 10-4-17

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

7 8. Biological Resources Report 120516

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: PC Staff Report 01-20-22 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

GILROY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 395 LEWIS STREET (APN: 841-03-062) INTO FOUR PARCELS (FILE NUMBER TM 20-01) WHEREAS, on March 1, 2021 an application was resubmitted by Qui T. Son, of iMark Designs proposing subdivision of a 1.05 acre site into four lots, located at 395 Lewis Street within the City of Gilroy R1 Single-Family Residential zoning district (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the application submittal was accepted as complete on June 25, 2021; and WHEREAS, On November 2, 2020 the Gilroy City Council adopted the Gilroy 2040 General Plan after certifying an EIR for the plan and whereas the General Plan EIR reviewed all of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, an environmental checklist was prepared for the Project to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result; and WHEREAS, the project has been deemed statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning), and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on January 20, 2022, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the project TM 20-01; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the Community Development Department, Planning Division.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby find as follows:

1. The proposed Tentative Map to subdivide the 1.05 acre property into four (4) new residential lots is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and the residential density and uses anticipated within the General Plan Low Density Residential land use designation.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act given that the size, shape and location of the property complies with all applicable codes and ordinances.

3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project are in proximity to the site.

4. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project, which qualifies for statutory and categorical exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council the approval of application TM 20-01, subject to the Conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Elle, Doyle, Bhandal, Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ATTEST: APPROVED:

Kraig Tambornini, Secretary Tom Fischer, Chairperson
Tom Fischer (Jan 26, 2022 16:16 PST)

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TM 20-01

PLANNING CONDITIONS
The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT(S).

1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for Tentative Parcel Map TM 20-01 is granted to subdivide a 1.05-acre site into four (4) single-family residential lots, located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) within the City of Gilroy R1 Single-Family Residential zoning district as shown on the Parcel Map prepared by Carnes and Ekparian Inc Land Surveyors for Qui T. Son, of iMark Designs, consisting of two (2) sheets, dated January 13, 2022 and received by the Planning Division on January 13, 2022.

Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council.

2. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant.

3. INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process.

4. SIGNS: No signs are approved as part of this application. Prior to issuance of a sign permit for this site, Developer shall propose well-designed, quality signs that comply with the allowances of the City Code and are to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee.

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

5. SIGNAGE: All signage advertising the development project or components thereof, including individual tenants or subdivisions, shall be installed or maintained onsite or offsite as allowed and in conformance with an approved sign permit.

6. WATER LIMITATIONS: Developer shall be advised that the approval is subject to the drought emergencies provisions pursuant to the Gilroy City Code Chapter 27.98.

The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition.

7. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: On plans submitted for grading permit, developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision-maker.

8. HABITAT PERMIT: Concurrent with or prior to an application for a grading permit, Developer shall submit a Habitat Permit application to the City of Gilroy. The application shall consist of the application processing fee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application For Private Projects and Fees and Conditions Worksheet (available on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency website: https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/) . A grading permit will be issued only after approval of the Habitat Plan permit and payment of assessed fees.

The following conditions shall be met prior to the approval of the FINAL MAP or PARCEL MAP, or other deadline as specified in the condition.

9. TENTATIVE MAP: An approved tentative parcel map, which shall expire twenty-four 24) months from the approval date, may be extended pursuant to the provisions of the Map Act.

The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition.

10. CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site:
a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays;
b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area;

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

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.”

11. CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential construction- related impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered;
c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.”

12. DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the Developer will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; b. Contractor will stockpile soil during development activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options;
c. Contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate filed screening instrumentation;
d. Contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks;
e. Contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and
f. Contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed.

13. DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50’ of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

14. DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event of an accidental discovery of archaeological resources during grading or construction activities, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site:

If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters 165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find.

If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.”

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

15. DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Developer shall include the following language in all grading, site work, and construction plans:

If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.”

ENGINEERING GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, utility sheets shall show appropriate line types and labels to identify different type of utilities and pipe sizes. Clearly identify both public and private utilities.

2. GENERAL - Improvement plans (as second sheet in plan set) shall contain Approved Conditions of Approval.

3. GENERAL - Improvement plans shall include General Notes found in the City of Gilroy General Guidelines. A complete set of improvement plans shall consist of Civil site design, landscape site design, Electrical, Joint Trench. Any walls or structural features part of the landscape design shall also be included.

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

4. GENERAL - Improvement plan cover sheet shall include a table summarizing all facilities Streets, Utilities, Landscaping, etc.), showing the ownership of all facilities, and the maintenance responsibilities of all facilities.

5. GENERAL - The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and local agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. A copy of these permits will be provided prior to building permits.

6. GENERAL – Improvement plans are required for both on-site and off-site improvements.

A separate plan set for each shall be prepared, or at the approval of the City Engineer, onsite and offsite sheets can be combined into one plan set.

7. GENERAL - Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles removed along the property frontage.

8. GENERAL - All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and if necessary relocated as approved by the City Engineer. No permanent structure is permitted within City easements without the approval of the City of Gilroy.

9. GENERAL - Prior to any work within public right of way or City easement, the developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City.

10. GENERAL - All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details, and is subject to all laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. Street improvements and the design of all off- site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines, and all street sections shall be in accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master Plan for streets, as approved by the City of Gilroy’s Public Works Director/City Engineer.

11. GENERAL - Prior to issuance of any building permits, developer shall submit for City approval water, sewer and storm drain studies for the development. These studies shall provide supporting hydraulic calculation for pipe sizing per City standard design guideline.

12. GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, developers engineer shall submit a calculation for sanitary sewer and water generation per the City’s Master Plan design criteria.

13. FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of Impact Fees is required at first permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy.

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01

14. FEE - Prior to plan approval, developer shall submit a detailed project cost estimate by the project engineer, subject to City Engineer approval. Cost estimate shall be broken out into on-site and off-site improvements.

15. FEE - Prior to final plan approval, Developer shall pay 100% of the plan check and processing fees and other related fees that the property is subject to, enter into a property improvement agreement, and provide payment and performance bonds.

16. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerns. If all or part of the construction occurs during the rainy season, the developer shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Public Works Director for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion control devices and other techniques in accordance with Municipal Code § 27C to minimize erosion. Specific measures to control sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination shall be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall supplement the Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These documents shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board, with a copy provided to the Engineering Division before a grading permit will be issued. WDID# shall be added to the grading plans prior to plan approval.

17. GRADING & DRAINAGE - Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer shall review the final grading, pavement design and drainage plans to ensure that said designs are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant’s Geotechnical engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either by letter or by signing the plans.

18. GRADING & DRAINAGE - At first improvement plan submittal, the developer shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The SWMP shall analyze the existing and ultimate conditions and facilities, and the study shall include all off-site tributary areas. Study and the design shall be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).

Existing offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity shall not be altered by the development.

19. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading and improvement plans shall identify the vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor.

20. GRADING & DRAINGE - Improvement and grading plans shall show existing topo and features at least 50’ beyond the project boundary. Clearly show existing topo, label

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: PC Signed Resolution TM 20-01 (3651 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)

Resolution No. 2022-01