>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (e)
(e)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd) (sd)
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh) (e) (oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e)
(oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh)(e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e)(oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)(e)
(oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh) (e)
(oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)(e)
(oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(co)
(co)
(co)
(sd) (sd)
(ss)
(co)
(co)
(sd) (sd) (sd)
(sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd)
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd)(sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd)
(sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd)(sd)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w)
(e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)
(e)
(e)
(e)
(e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)
(e)
(e)
(e) (e)
(e)
(e)
(e)
(e)
(e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w) (w)
(w)
(w) (w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w) (w) (w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss)
(ss)
(ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (ss) (w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(e)
(oh) (e)
(oh)
(e) (oh)
F F F F F F F F
CLEAN AIR
SD
CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR
EV CHARGINGEV CHARGING
> > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X X X
X X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
PUBLIC
PLAZA
10'-0"
PSE PSE 10'-0"
10'-0"
12'-0"
26'-0"
2'-7
1 2
"
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK SPACE FOR LV HOUSE PANEL TESTBLOCK & METER METER STACK PULL/MAIN METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK
NORTH 0' 25' 50' 100'
6 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
37 36
35 34
44 45
46 47
48 49
38 39
40 43
42 41
BLDG. 2
7 UNITS
28 15
R A I L R O A D T R A C K S
M O N T E R E Y R O A D
E X I S T I N G
C O M M E R C I A L
BLDG. 1
5 UNITS
BLDG. 8
7 UNITS
BLDG. 7
7 UNITS
BLDG. 6
4 UNITS
BLDG. 4
5 UNITS
BLDG. 5
7 UNITS
BLDG. 3
7 UNITS
INDICATES ACCESSIBLE UNITS
INDICATES CONCEPTUAL
LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE UNIT
CLEAN AIR VEHICLE
ELECTRIC CHARGING STATION
PROPERTY LINE
50% OF THESE PARKING SPACES
BELONG TO THE GATES PROJECT
COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACE
LEGEND 18'-0" 6'-8"
26'-0"
3'-0"
47'-6" 6'-0"
6'-0" 54'-7"
10 13'-0"
7 7
2 3 4 5
COMMERCIAL SPACES 26'-0" 25'-0"
26'-0"
1 33
32 20 21
7 8 9
26'-0" 11'-1"
3'-0"
10'-0" 14'-10"
5 METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK
COMMERCIAL 1
682 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL 2
673 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL 3
634 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL 4
673 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL 5
1353 SQ. FT.
150'-0"
3'-0"
10 11 12
13 14 15 16
TRASH/MECH. ROOM
SITE AREA = 113,204 SQ. FT.
UNIT SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 49
COMMERCIAL UNITS: 5
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL SPACES REQUIRED=
2.5/UNITS X 49 UNITS = 122.5 = 123 SPACES
RESIDENTIAL SPACES PROVIDED=
COVERED =49 UNITS x 2 = 98 SPACES (2-CAR GARAGE/UNIT)
UNCOVERED = 25 SPACES (LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE SITE)
TOTAL = 123 SPACES PROVIDED
GUEST PARKING SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL
REQUIRED PARKING = 1 PER 3 UNIT = 17 SPACES
COMMERCIAL:
REQUIRED PARKING = (4016 SQ. FT.)/250 SQ. FT = 17 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED ON SITE = 34 SPACES
TOTAL PROVIDED ON SITE = 38 SPACES
EV SPACES PROVIDED = 2 SPACES
(PER MHMC CH. 18.72.040 RQMTS: 50 -100 SPACES REQ 2 SPACES) CLEAN AIR VEHICLE SPACES PROVIDED = 9 SPACES
(PER CAL GREEN TABLE 5.106.5.2 - DESIGNATED PARKING FOR CLEAN AIR VEHICLES)
CLEAN AIR
CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR
ADA 3
CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR
METER STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER STACK
26'-2" BLDG TO BLDG
NOTE:
ACCESSIBLE UNIT TYPES TO BE FINALIZED DURING
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
ADA
C C C C C C C
C C C C C
C C C C C
C C C
SETBACK 10'-0"
SETBACK 20'-0"
5'-0"
INT. SETBACK
5'-0"
INT. SETBACK
SCALE:
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
SP
1"=40'-0"
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
Z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\SP\317062_SP.dwg, 6/28/2022 4:44:42 PM, yanni
UPPER PL
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PL
1
1
UPPER SUBFLR.
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PL
1
ENT.
LIV.
M. BD.
3 0 6
4
3 0 6
4 3
01
6 1
6 1
6
1 MIN. CLR.
AROUND THE PAD
36[36 LADDER PAD
TYP. SECTION
UPPER FLOOR
3RD
TYP. LADDER PAD EXHIBIT
SCALE: 316=1
0
M. BD. *3050 SH *3050 SH
5
UPPER PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR
MAIN PLATE
SOG
MAIN SUBFLR
GROUND PLATE
1
1
1
:12 3
6
1 2
4
1
1 2
:12 3
62
1 4
12
1
BUILDING 2
TYP. SECTION AT DRIVEWAY
SCALE: 316=1
0
BUILDING 1
26 2 2
21
5 30
5 21
4
34
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 105
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
4105
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 4155121300
I. 415202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
15451565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
31062.00
SCALE:
FIRE EXHIBIT
FE
316 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Cover\317062_FIRE EXHIBIT.dwg, 6/27/2022 4:23:05 PM, yanni
RIGHT ELEVATION
BLDG. 1 14'-0"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE 4'-4" 25'-1" 44'-0"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
SIGNAGE 14'-0"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 29'-5" 44'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION
BLDG. 1
SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
FINISH SCHEDULE
1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
2 LOUVERED ROOF VENT
3 CORBEL W/ KICKER
4 HORIZONTAL RAILING
5 HARDI BOARD + BATT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 HARDI HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 DECORATIVE SIDING
9 WINDOWS
10 GLASS DOOR
11 ENTRY DOOR
12 NOT USED
13 MANDOOR
14 STYLIZED LIGHT AND ADDRESS
15 COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
16 STOREFRONT GLAZING
17 ROOF CANOPY
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 1 FRONT & RIGHT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A1.1
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_1\EE\317062_Bldg 1_EE.dwg, 6/27/2022 4:39:17 PM, yanni
14'-0"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 29'-5" 44'-0"
F F F F F REAR ELEVATION
BLDG. 1
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
????????
D.?
????? 224...
SIGNAGE
LEFT ELEVATION
BLDG. 1 14'-0"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE 44'-0"
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 9'-1" 9'-1"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
FINISH SCHEDULE
1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
2 LOUVERED ROOF VENT
3 CORBEL W/ KICKER
4 HORIZONTAL RAILING
5 HARDI BOARD + BATT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 HARDI HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 DECORATIVE SIDING
9 WINDOWS
10 GLASS DOOR
11 ENTRY DOOR
12 NOT USED
13 MANDOOR
14 STYLIZED LIGHT AND ADDRESS
15 COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
16 STOREFRONT GLAZING
17 ROOF CANOPY
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 1 REAR & LEFT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A1.2
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_1\EE\317062_Bldg 1_EE.dwg, 6/27/2022 4:39:23 PM, yanni
FRONT ELEVATION
BLDG. 4
F F
1 2 3 4 5 6 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
12 3 1 2
11 4 9 6 7
5 F
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
LEFT ELEVATION
BLDG. 4
F F
A B 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
RIGHT ELEVATION
BLDG. 4
B A 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
13 HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
REAR ELEVATION
BLDG. 4
6 5 4 3 2 1 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 29'-8
1 2
" 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
FINISH SCHEDULE
1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
2 LOUVERED ROOF VENT
3 CORBEL W/ KICKER
4 HORIZONTAL RAILING
5 HARDI BOARD + BATT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 HARDI HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 DECORATIVE SIDING
9 WINDOWS
10 GLASS DOOR
11 ENTRY DOOR
12 NOT USED
13 MANDOOR
14 STYLIZED LIGHT AND ADDRESS
15 COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
16 STOREFRONT GLAZING
17 ROOF CANOPY
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A1.3
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_4\EE\317062_Bldg 4_EE.dwg, 6/27/2022 4:39:43 PM, yanni
FRONT ELEVATION
BLDG. 6
F F
1 2 3 4 5 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
12 3 1 2
11 4 9 6 7
5 HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
LEFT ELEVATION
BLDG. 6
F F
A B 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
13 HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
RIGHT ELEVATION
BLDG. 6
F
B A 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
REAR ELEVATION
BLDG. 6
5 4 3 2 1 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 29'-8
1 2
" 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
FINISH SCHEDULE
1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
2 LOUVERED ROOF VENT
3 CORBEL W/ KICKER
4 HORIZONTAL RAILING
5 HARDI BOARD + BATT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 HARDI HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 DECORATIVE SIDING
9 WINDOWS
10 GLASS DOOR
11 ENTRY DOOR
12 NOT USED
13 MANDOOR
14 STYLIZED LIGHT AND ADDRESS
15 COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
16 STOREFRONT GLAZING
17 ROOF CANOPY
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A1.4
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_6\EE\317062_Bldg 6_EE.dwg, 6/27/2022 4:40:01 PM, yanni
FRONT ELEVATION
BLDG. 8 (BLDG. 2 & 7R SIM.)
F F F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
12 3 1 2
11 4 9 6 7
5 F
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
LEFT ELEVATION
BLDG. 8 (BLDG. 2 & 7R SIM.)
F F
A B 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
13 HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
RIGHT ELEVATION
BLDG. 8 (BLDG. 2 & 7R SIM.)
F F
B A 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6" 29'-8
1 2
"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
REAR ELEVATION
BLDG. 8 (BLDG. 2 & 7R SIM.)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
GROUND S.O.G.
GROUND PLATE
MAIN SUBFLR.
MAIN PLATE
UPPER SUBFLR.
UPPER PLATE 29'-8
1 2
" 6'-3" 2'-6
1 2
" 39'-6"
HEIGHT LIMIT 45' - 0"
FINISH SCHEDULE
1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF
2 LOUVERED ROOF VENT
3 CORBEL W/ KICKER
4 HORIZONTAL RAILING
5 HARDI BOARD + BATT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 HARDI HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 DECORATIVE SIDING
9 WINDOWS
10 GLASS DOOR
11 ENTRY DOOR
12 NOT USED
13 MANDOOR
14 STYLIZED LIGHT AND ADDRESS
15 COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
16 STOREFRONT GLAZING
17 ROOF CANOPY
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 8 (2 & 7R SIM.) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A1.5
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_7-8\EE\317062_Bldg 7-8_EE.dwg, 6/27/2022 4:40:24 PM, yanni
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1
GAR.
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
00 SECT. GAR. DR.
UP SCD 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10
ENT.
W.I.C
BTH.3
KIT.
UP
DN
DN
BD. 2
BTH.2 300 FIBERGLASS
2 SOLID CORE
24
24
24 2
24
24 24
24 OPT. 2 2
24
210
2040 SH
TEMP. 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 CPT H.S.
CPT H.S. H.S. CPT
1
0
4 11
4
2 2
2
4 4
0
1
0
4 11
4
1 0
1 2
3
R.O.
1 0
1 2
1
0
10 4 4
11
4
0
1
0
1 13
0 1
3
1 2
4
1 2
1
0
10 4
4
0 1
11 3
1
0
3 11 12
1
4 1
0 4
0 1
10 2
1
1 2
4
0 1
10 21
3 1
0
UPPER LIVING: 1 SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 1403 SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: SQ. FT.
GARAGE: SQ. FT.
CPT H.S.
CPT H.S.
CPT H.S.
10 10
1 2
3 11 3
2
11
2
1 2
3
2
4 3
2 3
3
10 3
2
3
1 2
1 2
2
3
1 2
1
2
2
3 1
2 3
1 2
2
4
1
3
2 2
4
1
1 2
3 3
1 4
111
2
1 2
2
10 4 1
4
3
0
11
10
10 1
0 11
3 3
4 2
3 12
0 12
3
11
1 4
0 3
10
13
3
10
11
1 3
10
0 13
10
42
10
1
4W.I.C.
W.I.C.
1 2
2
11
1 2
11
2 14
1
1 2
4
10 4
10
0
0 42
10
0 14
1
1 2
1 2
1
1 2
0
1 4=1
0
300 SH 300 SH*
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH*
300 SH*
300 SH 300 FRENCH DR
300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
0
3
1 2 4
12
0
2040 FX
SCD. SCD. 4 3
0
1 2
13
1
10
3
1 2
1
11
1 2
2
3
10 30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR
3 SCD.
1 0 3
1
0
4
1 2
1
1 2
42
10
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 1
A2.1
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 1\FP\317062_FP1.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:11:45 PM, yanni
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
1
0
1
0
1 2
3
R.O.
1 0
1 2
4
0 1
10 4
0 1
10 41
0
0 2
10
1 2
14
1
1 2
GAR.
UP
ENT. 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X UPPER LIVING: 1 SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 1403 SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: SQ. FT.
GARAGE: SQ. FT.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
1
1 2
10
10
1 2
1
0 1
0
1
0 4
10 42
10 4
10
0 42
10
0
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
W.I.C
BTH.3
KIT.
BD. 2
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
00 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
2 SOLID CORE
24
24
24 2
24
24 24
24 OPT. 2 2
24
210
2040 SH
300 SH 300 SH* TEMP.
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH*
300 SH*
300 SH 300 FRENCH DR
300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
2040 FX
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 1X
A2.2
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 1\FP\317062_FP1.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:11:48 PM, yanni
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X ADA
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X ADA
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X ADA
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
UPPER LIVING: 1 SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 10
SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: 13 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 00 SQ. FT.
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0 4
10
0 42
10 42
10 4
101
0
1
0 1
10 4
0 2
10
1 2
21
1
1 2
4 11
4
0 1
10 23
1
1 2
0 1
0
4
1 2
0 41
0
2 10
10
2 2
4
4
0 1
2 4
1 2
2
2
2 300 FIBERGLASS
30 SOLID CORE 14 MAX. 14 MAX
30
3
2 2
11
1 2
4
3 1
10
4
1 3
GAR.
ENT.
FOR STANDARD ACCESSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS, SEE 1AD
.2 2
11
1 2
1
2 1
0
2040 SH
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
W.I.C
BTH.3
KIT.
BD. 2
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
00 SECT. GAR. DR.
24
24
24 2
24
24 24
24 OPT. 2 2
24
210
2040 SH
300 SH 300 SH* TEMP.
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH*
300 SH*
300 SH 300 FRENCH DR
300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
2040 FX
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 1XADA
A2.3
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 1\FP\317062_FP1.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:11:49 PM, yanni
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
SPACE
FOR LV
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER
PULLMAIN
HOUSE
PANEL T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X ADA METER CLOSET
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X ADA METER CLOSET
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1X ADA METER CLOSET
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.1
UPPER LIVING: SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING:
2 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 10
SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: 1 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 0 SQ. FT.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
0 4
10
0 42
10 42
10 4
101
2
1
2 1
10 4
0 2
10
1 2
21
1
1 2
4
11
4
0 1
10 23
1
1 2
0 1
0
4
1 2
0 41
0
4 10
10
2 2
4
4
0 1
2 4
1 2
2
2
2 300 FIBERGLASS
30 SOLID CORE 14 MAX. 14 MAX
30
3
2 2
11
1 2
4
3 1
10
4
1 3
GAR.
ENT.
FOR STANDARD ACCESSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS, SEE 1AD 2
11
1 2
1
2 1
0
2040 SH 1
0 1
1 2
11
1 4
1 2
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
W.I.C
BTH.3
KIT.
BD. 2
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C. 10
1
00 SECT. GAR. DR.
24
24
24 2
24
24 24
24 OPT. 2 2
24
210
2040 SH
300 SH 300 SH* TEMP.
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH*
300 SH*
300 SH 300 FRENCH DR
300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 1XADAMETER CLOSET
A2.4
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 1\FP\317062_FP1.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:11:51 PM, yanni
1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2
GAR.
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
UP SCD 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10
ENT.
KIT.
UP
DN DN
BD. 2 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 CPT H.S. H.S. CPT
UPPER LIVING:
SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: 2 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 1
SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: 2 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 02 SQ. FT.
H.S. CPT.
CPT H.S.
CPT H.S.
DEN
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
100 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
00 SGD OPT.
300 SH
TEMP. 300 FRENCH DOOR
2040 SH
TEMP. H.S. CPT CPT. H.S.
4 10
1 2
1
20
1
0 4
2
4
0 1
21
11 2
10
12
11
20
2 2
1 2
1
3 2
2
1 2
4
2
10 21
1 21
0
3
1 2
12
4
1 2
3
1 2
4
2
1
0
10
4
0
4
1
0
10
4
4 0 1
4
1
0
4
0
3
1
0
3 1
2 12
41
2 4
41
2
0 0
4 10
2
13
1
0 0
4
0
1
1 2
3
1 2
0 13
4 32
3
3
1 2
1 2
2
3
1 2
1
2
0
2 2
10 4
1
1 2
1 2
3
2 3
2 10
4
10 2 3
4
3
4 2
0 4
4 11
1
3
0 3
10 13
0 4
4
2 3
3 1
13
3
1
4
2
3
0
1 1
111
2 3
1 2
111
2 1
4
3
0 2
3 4
10 2 1
1 2
1 2
12 4
1 2
W.I.C. 1
4
0 3
1 4 = 1
0
1
300 SH 300 SH*
300 SH
TEMP*
300 SH
300 SH 300 SH*
300 SH 2
0
300 SH 300 SH
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
2 4
0
1 13
0 1
SCD. SCD. 4 SCD. 2
10 1
30[24 CLR
4 0 1
1 13
0 1
30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR
2 0 42
2030 SH
0
3 12
11
4
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
B
A1..2 3
1 2
2 SOLID CORE
40 BIPASS 24
24
2
24
24 24
24
24
24 OPT. 2 2
210
BTH.3
OPTIONAL BD.4BTH.4
SEE SHT. A2.11
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2
A2.
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:06 PM, yanni
1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 END
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 END
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 END
UP SCD 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10UP
DN DN1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 CPT H.S. H.S. CPT
UPPER LIVING: 02 SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: 33 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 1
SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: 2
SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 0 SQ. FT.
H.S. CPT.
CPT H.S.
CPT H.S.
100 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
00 SGD OPT.
300 SH
TEMP. 300 FRENCH DOOR
2040 SH
TEMP. H.S. CPT CPT. H.S.
20 10
1
2 4
2 11
4
0 2
10
20 10
2 4
1 2
1
3 2
2
1 2
0
4 2
10
0
3
1 2
12
4
1 2
3
1 2
4
2
1
2
10 10
4
1
2
10 10
4
4 2 1
1
2
4 11
0
3
1
2
3
1 2
12
41
2 0
4
0 0
4
0
3
1 2
1 2
2
2
2
10 4
1
1 2
1 2
0 4
4
0 4
4
1 10 1
111
2 3
1 2
12 4
1 2
1 10 4
0 3
1 4 = 1
0
1
300 SH
TEMP*
300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
1 13
0 1
SCD. SCD. 4 SCD. 30[24 CLR
4 2 1
1 13
0 1
30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR 42
2030 SH
3
4
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
B
A1..2 2 SOLID CORE
40 BIPASS 24
24
2
24
24 24
24
24
24 OPT. 2 2
210 42
2
10 42
GAR.
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
ENT.
KIT.
BD. 2
DEN
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
BTH.3
300 SH 300 SH* 300 SH 300 SH*
OPTIONAL BD.4BTH.4
SEE SHT. A2.11
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2 END
A2.
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:09 PM, yanni
1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK
METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET UNIT
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET UNIT
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET UNIT
UP SCD 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10UP
DN DN1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 CPT H.S. H.S. CPT
UPPER LIVING: 02 SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: 33 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 1
SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: 2
SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 0 SQ. FT.
H.S. CPT.
CPT H.S.
CPT H.S.
100 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
00 SGD OPT.
300 SH
TEMP. 300 FRENCH DOOR
2040 SH
TEMP. H.S. CPT CPT. H.S.
4 10
1 2
1
20 10
1
2 4
2 11
4
0 1
21
11 2
10
12
11
20 10
2 4
1 2
1
3 2
2
1 2
4
2
10
0
3
1 2
12
4
1 2
3
1 2
4
2
1
2
10 10
4
1
2
10 10
4
4 2 1
1
2
4 11
0
3
1
2
3
1 2
12
41
2 4
41
2
0 0
4
0 0
4
0
3
1 2
1 2
2
3
1 2
1
2
0
2
2
10 4
1
1 2
1 2
3
2 3
2 10
4
10 2 3
4
3
4 2
0 4
4
0 4
4
1 10 1
111
2 3
1 2
12 4
1 2
1 10 4
0 3
1 4 = 1
0
300 SH
TEMP*
300 SH 300 SH 2
0
300 SH 300 SH
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
4 4
0
1 13
0 1
SCD. SCD. 4 SCD. 30[24 CLR
4 2 1
1 13
0 1
30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR 42
2030 SH
3
4
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
B
A1..2
B
A1..2 4
4 2 SOLID CORE
40 BIPASS 24
24
2
24
24 24
24
24
24 OPT. 2 2
210 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
1
0
GAR.
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
ENT.
KIT.
BD. 2
DEN
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
BTH.3
300 SH 300 SH* 300 SH 300 SH*
OPTIONAL BD.4BTH.4
SEE SHT. A2.11
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET UNIT
A2.
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:11 PM, yanni
1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X
UP SCD 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10
UP
DN
DN 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 1 RISERS # .2 1 TREADS # 10 UPPER LIVING: 2 SQ. FT. MAIN LIVING: SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 10 SQ. FT.
GROUND LIVING: 20 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 0 SQ. FT.
1 4 = 1
0 SCD SCD. 4 SCD. 30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR 30[24 CLR
20 10
H.S. CPT H.S. CPT
CPT. H.S.
H.S. CPT
H.S. CPT H.S. CPT H.S. CPT
1
2 4
2
10 4
0 1
23
11 4
4
1 2
1
2
0
2
1 13
2 1
2
10 21
1 4
0 1
2
10 12
11
20 10
2 4
1 2
1
3 2
2
1 2
1
2
1 0 1
2 0
4 12
21
11
1
21 10
1
2 4
0
4 20
0
1 2
1
1 2
1
2
1 0 1
2 12
21
11
1
1
2
1
2 11
1
0 3
10
10
1 2
3
1 2
1
13
3
1
0 4
4
3
0
12 3 3
11
10
0 32
3 3
1 2
1 2
12
11 13
4
0
1
1 2
4
1 2
3
1 2
3
3
1 2
3
11
1 2
0
1 2
0
2
0 2
1 2
3
1 2
1
1 2
1
1 2
4
0
1 2
2
1 2
1 2
1 2
21
1 13
2 1
0
4 4
1 2
2
1 2
2
2 3
1 2 10
11 1
2 4
1 2
0 1
2 1
1 2
13
4 4
4
2
1 2
4
4
1 2
1 11 1
1
2 2
4
1 1
2
0
1 1
2
0 2
4 3
0 2
1 4
2
1 2
2 1
312
1
10 4
3 3
1
2
3
4
0 1
4
10 2 1
1 2
1 2
3
2 4
1 4
4
2 1
4 1
4
0 2
1 2
3
1 2
1
2 4
4
1 2
1
12
1 2
3
4 4
11
1 2
1 4
0 10
14
1 2
1 0
C
A1..2
C
A1..2
C
A1..2
C
A1..2
C
A1..2
C
A1..2 1
3
1
3
4
100 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
300 SH 300 SH 200 SH 300 FX 300 FX
00 SGD OPT. 300 FRENCH DOOR
300 SH* 300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 200 SH 2030 SH
200 SH
TEMP.
300 SH
TEMP.*
300 SH 300 SH* 300 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 200 SH 200 SH 2 SOLID CORE 0 BIPASS
24
2 24 24
24
24
24 OPT. 2
210
24
24
24 2 2
DECK
GAR.
ENT. DEN
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
BTH.3
KIT.
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
BD. 2
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
W.I.C. 1
0 1
10
OPTIONAL BD.4BTH.4
SEE SHT. A2.11
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2X
A2.
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:13 PM, yanni
DECK
SPACE
FOR LV
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER
PULLMAIN
HOUSE
PANEL 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
23 4
4
20 10
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET 34 UNIT GROUND LIVING: 20 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 0 SQ. FT.
23
2 10
1
2 4
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2. 42
2
10 2
10
2 10 2
1 2
1
1 2
1
0 11
1 4
1 2
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET 34 UNIT MAIN LIVING: SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 10 SQ. FT.
1
2 0
4
21 10 0
4
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2. UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET 34 UNIT UPPER LIVING: 2 SQ. FT. 1
2 4
4 4
4
1
2
0
0
4
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.
GAR.
ENT. DEN
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
BTH.3
KIT.
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
BD. 2
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
100 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
300 SH 300 SH 200 SH
00 SGD OPT. 300 FRENCH DOOR
300 SH* 300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 200 SH 2030 SH
200 SH
TEMP.
300 SH
TEMP.*
300 SH 300 SH* 300 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 200 SH 200 SH OPTIONAL BD.4BTH.4
SEE SHT. A2.11
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET 34 UNT
A2.
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:16 PM, yanni
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK
METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
23 4
20 10
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET UNIT GROUND LIVING: 20 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 0 SQ. FT.
GAR.
ENT. DEN
23
2 10
1
2 4
42
2
102
10 1
4
1 2
22
1
1 2
1
0 1
4
1 2
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET UNIT MAIN LIVING: SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING: 10 SQ. FT.
1
2 0
4
21 10 0
4
BD. 3
DIN.
LIV.
DECK
BTH.3
KIT.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET UNIT UPPER LIVING: 2 SQ. FT.
M. BD.
M. BTH.
LNDY.
BD. 2
BTH.2
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
W.I.C.
1
2 4
4 4
4
1
2
0
0
4
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.
100 SECT. GAR. DR. 300 FIBERGLASS
300 SH 300 SH 200 SH
00 SGD OPT. 300 FRENCH DOOR
300 SH* 300 SH
300 SH
TEMP.
300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 300 SH 200 SH 2030 SH
200 SH
TEMP.
300 SH
TEMP.*
300 SH 300 SH* 300 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 2030 SH 200 SH 200 SH 1 2
10 21
1
1 2
1
2
10
OPTIONAL BD.4BTH.4
SEE SHT. A2.11
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET UNT
A2.10
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:18 PM, yanni
T.H. T.P.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2 - BD. 4 ./ BTH. 4
BD. 4
BTH. 4
ENT.
UP17 RISERS @ 7.27" 16 TREADS @ 10"
20'-8"
5'-2" 10'-10" 4'-8" 21'-5" 5'-0" 10'-5" 2'-3
1 2
" 5'-10
1 2
" 2'-10"
3'-7
1 2
" 8'-4
1 2 1'-6 " 12
" 2'-5
1 2
"
3'-7
1 2
" 4'-0" 5'-4" 3'-0
1 2
" 4'-8" SCD SCD. SCD.
30x24 CLR
2'-9" 5'-4" 5'-6" 7'-11
1 2
" 2'-5
1 2
"
2'-5"
H.S.
CPT.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.5
6068 BI-PASS
2668
2468 3080 FIBERGLASS
6080 SGD OPT.
3050 SH 3050 SH 2868 SOLID CORE
STANDARD
PLAN 2
SEE SHT.
A2.5
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK
& METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
METER
STACK 18'x19' GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
23'-8" 47'-6"
20'-10"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2X - METER CLOSET 5-7 UNIT - ADA BD.4./BTH.4 GROUND LIVING: 336 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 506 SQ. FT.
GAR.
ENT.
BD.4
23'-8"
2'-10"
16'-2" 4'-8" 42'-6" 2'-10"2'-10" 19'-4
1 2
" 22'-1
1 2
" 1'-0" 17'-5" 4'-8
1 2
" 5'-0" 5'-0"
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN, SEE A2.8
16070 SECT. GAR. DR. 3080 FIBERGLASS
3050 SH 3050 SH 2050 SH
6080 SGD OPT. 18'-7" 2'-10" 21'-1"
9 1
2 " 18'-7" 2'-10"
BATH.4
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
PLAN 2 - BD-BTH 4 OPT & BD.4 ADA
A2.11
1/4" = 1'-0"
Z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 2\FP\317062_FP2.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:38:15 PM, yanni
T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
FX4DNF049
26'-0"
14'-0" 12'-0" 53'-4" 9'-6" 42'-10" 53'-4" 9'-6" 43'-10" 26'-0" 53'-4" 9'-6" 43'-10"26'-0"
11'-8" 14'-4"
26'-0"
14'-0" 12'-0" 53'-4" 9'-6" 42'-10" 1'-0" 1'-0"
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3
UPPER LIVING: 1060 SQ.FT.
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3
MAIN LIVING: 1190 SQ.FT.
TOTAL LIVING: ±2310 SQ. FT.
DECK: 247 SQ. FT.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3 53'-4" 1'-0" 26'-3
1 2
" 26'-0
1 2
"
26'-0" 50'-6" 26'-0
1 2
" 24'-5
1 2
"
26'-0"
GROUND LIVING: 71 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 565 SQ. FT.
2880 3080
GAR.
ENT.
KIT.
DIN.
LIV.
PDR.
DEN OPT. BD. 4
M.BD.
BD. 2
BD. 3
BTH.2
M. BTH
LNDY.
W.I.C.
DECK
7'-0" 7'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"
4'-8" 3'-712
" 1'-9" 1'-71
2 " 7'-1" 6'-0" 12'-9" 7'-4"
7'-0"
7'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0" 13'-10" 1'-3
1 2
" 6'-8
1 2
" 1'-3
1 2
" 5'-4
1 2
" 2'-3
1 2
" 12'-0
1 2
"
8'-3 7'-3" 1
2 " 3'-41
2 " 10'-9" 2'-3
1 2
" 6'-6
1 2
" 7'-3" 17'-0" 12'-1" 13'-9" 17'-0" 14'-2" 5'-5" 7'-3" 17'-0" 1'-10" 6'-5" 1'-0" 17'-1 1 2
" 2'-10" 1'-0" 14'-9" 8'-8
1 2
"
3'-9
1 2 22'-2 " 1
2 "
2'-2
1 2
" 16'-3"
R.O.
1'-7
1 2
" 10" 4'-3" 10"
2'-3
3 4
" 1'-11
1 4
"
UP17 RISERS @ 7.27" 16 TREADS @ 10" SCD
H.S. CPT H.S. CPT
CPT H.S.
H.S. CPT H.S. CPT H.S. CPT
COM 1
±682 SQ. FT.
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
PLAN 3
A2.12
1/4" = 1'-0"
Z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 5\FP\317062_FP5.dwg, 6/29/2022 2:33:18 PM, yanni
T.P. T.R. T.H. 2050 SH 2050 SH 2050 SH 2050 SH T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P.
T.H.
FX4DNF049 2050 SH 2050 SH 4020 SL 2040 SH T.R. 51'-10" 1'-0" 26'-3 1 2
" 24'-4
1 2
"
28'-0" 51'-10" 24'-4
1 2
" 24'-5
1 2
"
26'-0" 26'-0"
14'-0" 12'-0" 51'-10" 6'-6" 25'-10" 51'-10" 6'-6" 45'-4" 28'-0" 1'-6"
13'-6" 14'-6" 51'-10" 6'-6" 45'-4"
28'-0"
13'-6" 14'-6"
26'-0"
14'-0" 12'-0" 51'-10" 6'-6" 25'-10" 1'-6" 1'-0" 1'-0"
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3 END
UPPER LIVING: 1060 SQ.FT.
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3 END
MAIN LIVING: 1190 SQ.FT.
TOTAL LIVING: ±2310 SQ. FT.
DECK: 202 SQ. FT.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3 END
GROUND LIVING: 71 SQ. FT.
GARAGE: 565 SQ. FT.
GAR.
ENT.
KIT.
DIN.
LIV.
PDR.
DEN OPT. BD. 4
M.BD.
BD. 2
BD. 3
BTH.2
M. BTH
LNDY.
W.I.C.
DECK 13'-10" 4'-10" 2'-6
1 2
" 2'-10" 8'-6" 2'-0" 1'-3
1 2
" 5'-4
1 2
" 2'-3
1 2
" 1'-6
1 2
" 12'-0
1 2
" 2" 2"
COM 1
±682 SQ. FT. 17'-0" 3'-2" 17'-0"
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
06.20.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
PLAN 3 END
A2.13
1/4" = 1'-0"
Z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Plan 5\FP\317062_FP5.dwg, 6/29/2022 2:33:34 PM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
COMMERCIAL END CRNR GROUND AREA: 133 SQ. FT.
COM. 2
2
2
2
0 2
2 4
0
2
2
2
2 2
4
0 1
0
2
2 2
0 24
4
1 2
22
1 2
1
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
COMMERCIAL END CRNR
A2.14
14 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Unit Plans\Commercial\FP\317062_COMMERCIAL.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:39 PM, yanni
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 1
1
10
2
0 2
PLAN 3
0 2
TRASH MECH. 1
0 2
0 0
1
10
2
2
COMMERCIAL CORNER
2
0
COMMERCIAL
2
0
COMMERCIAL 0
2
0 24
1 2
24
4
1 2
20
0 2
1
1
1
0
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL END
2
1
0
COMMERCIAL CORNER
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0
PLAN 3 END
T
M
COMM.1 COMM.1 COMM.1 COMM.1
COMM.2 2
0 1
0
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A3.1.1
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_1\FP\317062_BLDG 1_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:50 PM, yanni
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 1 T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.R. T.H. 200 SH 200 SH 200 SH 200 SH T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.R. T.H. 200 SH 200 SH 200 SH 200 SH 1
10
2
0 2
PLAN 3
0 2
TRASH MECH. 1
0 2
0 0
1
10
2
2
COMMERCIAL CORNER
2
0
COMMERCIAL
2
0
COMMERCIAL 2
2
0 2
0 20
0 2
1
1
1
0
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL END
2
1
0
COMMERCIAL CORNER
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0
PLAN 3 END
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3.1.2
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_1\FP\317062_BLDG 1_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:52 PM, yanni
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 1 T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.H.
T.R.
FX4DNF04
T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.H.FX4DNF04
200 SH 200 SH 4020 SL 2040 SH T.R. T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.H.
T.R.
FX4DNF04
T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.H.
T.R.
FX4DNF04
T.P. T.R. T.H. T.P. T.H.FX4DNF04
200 SH 200 SH 4020 SL 2040 SH T.R.
1
10
2
0 2
PLAN 3 1
0 2
0 0
1
10
2
2
COMMERCIAL CORNER
2
0
COMMERCIAL
2
0
COMMERCIAL 3
43
0
0 43
0 1
0 1
1
0
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL END
2
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0 2
PLAN 3
2
0
PLAN 3 END
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A3.1.3
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_1\FP\317062_BLDG 1_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:53 PM, yanni
:12 :12RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
:12
:12
RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
:12 :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY :12 :12RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY
:12
:12
RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY
:12 :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY :12
:12 :12
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
ROOF PLAN
BLDG. 1
1
10
2
2
COMMERCIAL CORNER
2
0
COMMERCIAL
2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL
2 2
0
COMMERCIAL END
2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 1 ROOF PLAN
A3.1.4
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_1\FP\317062_BLDG 1_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:12:55 PM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 2
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL MAIN
METER
STACK 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
113
4 2
10
20 10 2 11
4 2
113
4
20 2 11
4 2 1
0 11
4 42
2
10 1
0 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
2 10
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
11
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET 2
10 42
1
0 1
0
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
2 20
10
1
0
PLAN 1
2 2
1
2 1
0
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 2 GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A3.2.1
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_2\FP\317062_BLDG 2_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:08 PM, yanni
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 2
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
113
4 2
10
1
2 2 1
0 2
113
4
1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2
2 10
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
11
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET
2 4
4 1
0 1
1 0
1
2 1
0
0 12
21
11
1
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
2 1
2
1
0
PLAN 1
2 4
4
1 0
0 12
21
11
1
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3.2.2
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_2\FP\317062_BLDG 2_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:10 PM, yanni
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 2
113
4
1
2 2 1
0 2
113
4
1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2 4
4
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
114
4
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET
2 4
4
0
0 12
21
11
1 1
0 1
1
2
1 0
1
2 1
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
1
0
PLAN 1
2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A3.2.3
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_2\FP\317062_BLDG 2_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:11 PM, yanni
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2X
ROOF PLAN
BLDG. 2 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
PLAN 1
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 2 ROOF PLAN
A3.2.4
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_2\FP\317062_BLDG 2_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:12 PM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 3 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL MAIN
METER
STACK 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
2 10 113
4
20 10 2 11
4 2
113
4
20 2 11
4 2 1
0 11
4 42
2
10 1
0 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
2 10
1
2
PLAN 2X END METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X LONG
1
2
PLAN 2X 2
10 42
1
0 1
1
2
1
2
0
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
2 20
10
1
0
PLAN 1
2 2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 3 GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A3.3.1
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_3\FP\317062_BLDG 3_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:24 PM, yanni
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 3
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
113
4
1
2 2 1
0 2
113
4
1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2
1
2
PLAN 2X END METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 4
4 1
0 1
1 0
1
2 1
0
0 12
21
11
1
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
2 1
2
1
0
PLAN 1
2 4
4
1 0
1 0
0 12
21
11
1
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 3 MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3.3.2
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_3\FP\317062_BLDG 3_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:26 PM, yanni
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 3
113
4
1
2 2 1
0 2
113
4
1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2
1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 4
4
0 12
21
11
1 1
0 1
1
2
1 0
1
2 1
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
1
0
PLAN 1
2 4
4
0 12
21
11
1
1 0
1 0 1
2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 3 UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A3.3.3
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_3\FP\317062_BLDG 3_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:28 PM, yanni
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1X PLAN 2X
ROOF PLAN
BLDG. 3 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
PLAN 1
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 3 ROOF PLAN
A3.3.4
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_3\FP\317062_BLDG 3_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:29 PM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 4
1
0 1
0
20 10 2 11
4 2 1
0 2
10 42
4
0
3 0
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X 42
2
10 23
11 1
1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL MAIN
METER
STACK 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 4
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET ADA BD.4
1
2 2 1
0 2 1
0 1
0 2 11
4 2 20
10 2
10 42
2
0
1 0
1
2
PLAN 2 END
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X 4
4 11
1 21
12
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2 1
0 2 1
2
0
0
0
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET ADA BD.4
1
2 1
2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 4 GROUND MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3.4.1
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_4\FP\317062_BLDG 4_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:41 PM, yanni
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 4
1
2 2 1
0 2 1
0 1
0 0
4
1 0
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X 0
4 11
1 21
12
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2 1
0 2 1
2
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET ADA BD.4
2
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
ROOF PLAN
BLDG. 4 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. :12 :12 RIDGE VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE VALLEY 4:12PITCH BREAK D.S. :12 :12 RIDGE VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE D.S. VALLEY
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET
1
0
PLAN 1
1
0
PLAN 1X
1
0
PLAN 1
1
2
PLAN 2X METER CLOSET ADA BD.4
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 4 UPPER FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN
A3.4.2
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_4\FP\317062_BLDG 4_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:43 PM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG.
1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
2 1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
2 1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
1
0
PLAN 1
1
2 2
PLAN 2X
2 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL MAIN
METER
STACK 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
1 0 113
4 2
10 2
10 42
0
1 0 113
4 2
10 42
2
10 1
0 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
0
3 21
12
20 10 2 11
4 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 11
4 2 20
10
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A3..1
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_5\FP\317062_BLDG 5_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:54 PM, yanni
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
2 1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
2 1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
1
0
PLAN 1
1
2 2
PLAN 2X
2
114
4 2
10
1 0 4
4
0
1 0
114
4 2
10 4
4 3
10 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
0 11
1 21
12
1
2 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3..2
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_5\FP\317062_BLDG 5_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:55 PM, yanni
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
2 1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
2 1
0
PLAN 1X ADA
1
0
PLAN 1
1
2 2
PLAN 2X
2
114
4
1 0 4
4
0
1 0
114
4 4
4
0 11
1 21
12
1
2 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG. UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A3..3
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_5\FP\317062_BLDG 5_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:13:57 PM, yanni
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
7 7 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. 8:12 8:12 RIDGE
VALLEY 8:12 8:12 RIDGE
VALLEY 8:12 8:12 RIDGE
VALLEY 8:12 8:12 RIDGE
VALLEY
ROOF PLAN
BLDG. 5
16'-0"
PLAN 1X ADA
16'-0"
PLAN 1X ADA
16'-0"
PLAN 1X ADA
16'-0"
PLAN 1
16'-2"
PLAN 2X
16'-0"
PLAN 1
16'-2"
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 5 ROOF PLAN
A3.5.4
1/8" = 1'-0"
Z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_5\FP\317062_BLDG 5_FP.dwg, 4/12/2022 9:44:28 AM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 8 18'x19' GARAGE CLEARANCE
SPACE
FOR LV
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK & METER
PULL/MAIN
HOUSE
PANEL 18'x19' GARAGE CLEARANCE 9'x38' GARAGE CLEARANCE 9'x38' GARAGE CLEARANCE
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 8
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. 2'-10" 5'-0" 42'-6" 8'-3" 21'-9" 12'-6"
1'-0" 64'-10" 2'-10"
1'-0"1'-10" 5'-0" 42'-6" 2'-10" 1'-0" 15'-9
1 2
" 25'-8
1 2
" 12'-6" 13'-2
1 2
"
64'-10" 2'-10"
20'-10" 2" 11'-4" 2" 11'-4" 2" 20'-10"
16'-0"
PLAN 1
2" 16'-0"
PLAN 1
2" 16'-2"
PLAN 2X - METER CLOSET
16'-2"
PLAN 2X
2" 5'-0" 45'-4" 11'-1" 21'-9" 12'-6"
1'-0" 64'-10" 2'-10"
1'-0"1'-10" 5'-0" 45'-4" 3'-10" 15'-9
1 2
" 25'-8
1 2
" 12'-6" 13'-2
1 2
"
66'-10" 1'-10"
16'-2" 2" 16'-0" 2" 16'-0" 2" 16'-2"
16'-0"
PLAN 1
2" 16'-0"
PLAN 1
2" 16'-2"
PLAN 2X - METER CLOSET
16'-2"
PLAN 2X
2"
1'-0" 1'-0"
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 6 GROUND - MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3.6.1
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_6\FP\317062_BLDG 6_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:48:01 PM, yanni
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG. 8
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF049 T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF049
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF049
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF049 T.H.
T.R. 11'-1" 5'-0" 45'-4" 21'-9" 12'-6"
1'-0" 64'-10"
1'-0" 5'-0" 42'-6" 2'-10" 21'-9" 12'-6"
65'-10"
16'-2" 2" 16'-0" 2" 16'-0" 2" 16'-2" 1'-0"
16'-0"
PLAN 1
2" 16'-0"
PLAN 1
2" 16'-2"
PLAN 2X - METER CLOSET
16'-2"
PLAN 2X
2"
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
ROOF PLAN
BLDG. 8
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. 8:12 8:12 RIDGE VALLEY 8:12 8:12 RIDGE VALLEY 4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. 8:12 8:12 RIDGE VALLEY 8:12 8:12 RIDGE VALLEY 4:12 PITCH BREAK D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
16'-0"
PLAN 1
16'-0"
PLAN 1
16'-2"
PLAN 2X - METER CLOSET
16'-2"
PLAN 2X
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
ArchitecturePlanningInteriors
444 Spear Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.hunthalejones.com
t. 415-512-1300
f. 415-288-0288
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
18545-18565 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
317062.00
SCALE:
BLDG. 6 UPPER FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN
A3.6.2
1/8" = 1'-0"
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_6\FP\317062_BLDG 6_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:48:02 PM, yanni
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
BLDG.
BLDG. R SIM.
1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE 1
[1
GARAGE CLEARANCE
METER
STACK
TESTBLOCK METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL MAIN
METER
STACK
[3
GARAGE CLEARANCE
2 10 113
4
20 10 2 11
4 2
113
4
20 2 11
4 2 1
0 11
4 42
2
10 1
0 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
2 10
1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X 2
10 42
1
0 1
1
2
1
2
0
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
2 20
10
1
0
PLAN 1
2 2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG.
R SIM.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A3..1
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_7-8\FP\317062_BLDG 7-8_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:14:21 PM, yanni
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
BLDG.
BLDG. R SIM.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R. T.P. T.H.T.R.
T.P. T.H.
T.R.
2 10 113
4
1
2 2 1
0 2
113
4
1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2 4
4 3
10 22
1
1 2
1
4
1 2
2 10
1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 4
4 1
0 1
1 0
1
2 1
0
0
0 12
21
11
1
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
2 1
2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG.
R SIM.
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A3..2
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_7-8\FP\317062_BLDG 7-8_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:14:22 PM, yanni
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
BLDG.
BLDG. R SIM.
113
4
1
2 2 1
0 2
113
4
1
0 2 1
0 2 1
0 2 1
2 4
4
1
2
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2
2
1
0
PLAN 2
2 1
0
PLAN 1
2 1
0
PLAN 1X
1
2
PLAN 2X
2 4
4
0
0 12
21
11
1 1
0 1
1
2
1 0
1
2 1
0
A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R. T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.R.
T.H.
T.P.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.H.
T.R.
T.P.
T.R.
T.H.
FX4DNF04
T.P.
T.H.
T.R.
1
0
PLAN 1
2
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG.
R SIM.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A3..3
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_7-8\FP\317062_BLDG 7-8_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:14:24 PM, yanni
PLAN 2 END METER CLOSET PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2X A
B
A
B
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
ROOF PLAN
BLDG.
BLDG. R SIM.
4:12 PITCH BREAK
D.S.
D.S.
D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S.
4:12
PITCH BREAK D.S. :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY :12 :12 RIDGE
VALLEY
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
BLDG.
R SIM.
ROOF PLAN
A3..4
1 = 1
0
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Bldgs\BLDG_7-8\FP\317062_BLDG 7-8_FP.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:14:25 PM, yanni
FRONT ELEVATION ARCHITECTURAL IMAGERY
BLDG. 10
RAKE PROFILE
WCORBEL KICKER WINDOW TRIM PROFILE EAVE PROFILE
OUTDOOR LIGHT STYLE
RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT
RAILING STYLE
DOOR PROFILE
POST STYLE AT
DECK
OR EQUAL
C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
AUFKLWHFWXUHPODQQLQJIQWHULRUV
444 SSHDU SWUHHW, SXLWH 10
SDQ FUDQFLVFR, CA
410
ZZZ.KXQWKDOHMRQHV.FRP
W. 41121300
I. 41202
DATE:
PROJECT:
THE GATES
141 MONTEREY ROAD
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
04.12.2022
3102.00
SCALE:
ARCHITECTURAL IMAGERY
AI
N.T.S.
z:\317062_morgan_hill_8\Dwgs\DR-SD\Dwgs\Details\317062_ARCHITECTURAL IMAGERY.dwg, 4/11/2022 6:14:36 PM, yanni
06.29.22 Morgan Hill, CA
L-1
THE GATES -
Collaborative
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN IMAGERY
3.8
06.29.22 Morgan Hill, CA
L-2
THE GATES -
Collaborative
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN IMAGERY
MONTEREY ROAD
RAILROAD TRACKS
LEGEND
Seating Area w/BBQ and Tables
Children’s Play Area
Plaza with Optional Tenant Seating
Open Turf Area
Specimen Tree
Accent Tree
Street Tree
Screen Trees or Shrubs
Treatment Basin (see Civil Sheets)
Lounge Seating
Bocce Court with Seating
Storm Drain Easement (see Civil Sheets)
Parking
Retaining Walls - per Grading Plan
Transformers - per Site Utility Plan
8 9
6 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
13 13
13 15
15 4
4 4
3 11
12 2
2 1
1 10
7 SHRUBS, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVER SHRUBS, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVER
S C I E N T I F I C N A M E C O M M O N N A M E
S C I E N T I F I C N A M E C O M M O N N A M E
S C I E N T I F I C N A M E C O M M O N N A M E
Abelia grandiflora spp. Sherwood Abelia
Abutilon palmeri Palmer’s Indian Mallow
Acacia redolens Prostrate Acacia
Agave spp. Agave
Aloe spp. Aloe
Alogyne huegelli Blue Hibiscus
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Bouteloea gracilis Blue Grama
Buxus japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Green Beauty Japanese Boxwood Callistemon spp. Bottle Brushes
Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge
Carissa spp. Natal Plum
Ceanothus spp. California Lilac
Chondropetalum tectorum Small Cape Rush
Cistus salviifolius ‘Prostratus’ Sageleaf Rockrose
Cistus ‘Sunset’ Magenta Rockrose
Cotoneaster dammeri ‘Lowfast Bearberry Cotoneaster
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Crassula spp. Jade Plant
Dasyliron spp. Desert Spoon
Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily
Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue
Grevillea spp. Spider Flower
Helidotrichon sempervirens ‘Sapphire’ Sapphire Blue Oat Grass Hesperaloe spp. Yucca
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Ilex spp. Holly
Iris douglasiana Douglas’ Iris
Juncus patens California Gray Rush
Lantana montevidensis Trailing Lantana
Lavandula ssp. Lavender
Leucophyllum spp. Barometer Bush
Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild Rye Leymus glaucus Creeping Wildrye
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy Privet
Lomandra spp. Dwarf Mat Rush
Mahonia spp. Oregon Grape
Myoporum p. ‘Putah Creek’ Creeping Myoporum
Myrtus communis Common Myrtle
Olea europaea ‘Little Ollie’ Little Ollie Dwarf Olive
Pittosporum tobira var. Vairegated Mock Orange
Phormium spp. New Zealand Flax
Prunus caroliniana ‘Bright n Tight Bright N Tight Carolina Laurel Rhaphiolepis spp. Indian Hawthorn
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary
Salvia ‘Bees Bliss’ Bee’s Bliss Sage
Senecio serpens Blue Chalksticks
Tecoma spp. Trumpet
Westringia spp. Coast Rosemary
VINE AND ESPALIER
Bougainvillea spp, Bougainvillea
Campsis spp. Trumpet Vines
Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy
Pyracantha spp. Firethorns
Rosa ‘Cecile Brunner’ Cecile Brunner Climbing Rose
Rosmarinus spp. Rosemary
TREES
S C I E N T I F I C N A M E C O M M O N N A M E
Acacia spp. Acacia
Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Willow
Albizia julibrissin Persian Silk Tree
Arbutus ‘Marina’ Marina Strawberry Tree
Arbutus spp. Arbutus
Callistemon citrinus Lemon Bottle Brush
Cassia leptophylla Golden Medallion Tree
Celtis spp. Nettle Tree
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud
Gledilsia triacanthos ‘Moraine’ Moraine Honeylocust
Gleditsia tricanthos ‘Rubylace’ Red Honey Locust
Lagerstroemia spp. Crape Myrtle
Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel
Olea spp. Olive
Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache
Platanus racemosa Sycamore
Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine
Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache
Prunus cerasifera Flowering Plum
Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry
Punica granatum Pomegranate
Melaleuca spp. Paperbark Tree
Metrosideros excels Pohutukawa
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann Oak
Searsia lancea African Sumac
Ulmus spp. Elm
CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE
14 N O T E : C O N C E P T U A L P L A N T P A L E T T E S U B J E C T T O C H A N G E D U E T O A V A I L A B I L I T Y . F I N A L S E L E C T I O N S WILL BE IN CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTAL SET.
5 06.29.22
Morgan Hill, CA
L-3
THE GATES -
Collaborative
0 20’ 40’ 80’
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Scale: 1”= 40’-0”
T
T
1 6
2 3
4 3
3 2 8 7
2 MONTEREY ROAD
RAILROAD TRACKS
LEGEND
Flowering Tree
Open Turf Area
Bench
Bocce Court with Seating
Barbecue
Transformer - per Site Utility Plan
Children’s Play Area
Storm Drain Easement (see Civil Sheets)
3 4
5 6
7 8
2 1
5 06.29.22
Morgan Hill, CA
L-4
THE GATES -
Collaborative
0 10’ 20’ 40’
CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT Scale: 1”= 20’-0”
T
City of Morgan Hill
Development Services Department
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
3.9
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
October 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................1 B. SOURCES ......................................................................................................................3 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..........................................5 D. DETERMINATION...........................................................................................................6 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .........................................................................7 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................7 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................14 I. AESTHETICS......................................................................................................16 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES....................................................18 III. AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................19 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ..............................................................................28 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................42 VI. ENERGY.............................................................................................................46 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .....................................................................................50 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......................................................................55 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. .....................................................59 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ..............................................................66 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING...............................................................................80 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................82 XIII. NOISE.................................................................................................................83 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. ..........................................................................95 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. ...........................................................................................97 XVI. RECREATION.....................................................................................................99 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. ........................................................................................100 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES...................................................................104 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...............................................................105 XX. WILDFIRE.........................................................................................................109 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................110
FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Project Location ............................................................................................ 7 Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map...................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan...................................................................................................10 Figure 4 Landscaping/Outdoor Amenities Plan .........................................................................12 Figure 5 Preliminary Site Utility Plan .........................................................................................13 Figure 6 Vesting Tentative Map ................................................................................................15 Figure 7 Land Cover Types.......................................................................................................29 Figure 8 Sample Location Map .................................................................................................62 Figure 9 Existing Condition Schematic......................................................................................69 Figure 10 Proposed Condition Schematic .................................................................................70 Figure 11 Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan.........................................................................71 Figure 12 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette .....................................................................75 Figure 13 Llagas Creek Inundation Map ...................................................................................76 Figure 14 Llagas Creek Modeling Results.................................................................................77
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii
October 2022
Figure 15 Noise Zones, Level 1 to 3..........................................................................................89 TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Unit Mix......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance ...........................................................................20 Table 3 Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) .............................................21 Table 4 Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions .............................................................22 Table 5 Trees Proposed for Removal........................................................................................39 Table 6 Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions.....................................................................56 Table 7 Measured Sound Levels...............................................................................................84 Table 8 Noise Level Performance Standards ............................................................................85 Table 9 Construction Equipment Noise .....................................................................................87 Table 10 Exterior Noise Levels .................................................................................................88 Table 11 Calculated Interior Maximum Noise Levels................................................................91 Table 12 Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings ..............................................................93 Table 13 Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment.................................................93 Table 14 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison...............................................106
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Biological Assessment & Arborist Report
Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix E: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
Appendix F: Floodplain Impact Memorandum
Appendix G: Exterior Noise and Façade Acoustical Analysis Appendix H: Trip Generation and Operations Analysis/VMT Assessment
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 October 2022
INITIAL STUDY
October 2022
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Title: The Gates Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Morgan Hill
Development Services Department
Morgan Hill, CA
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Joey Dinh
Associate Planner
(408) 310-4671
4. Project Location: 18545-18565 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
APNs: 764-10-013 and -015
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Samantha Hauser
City Ventures, LLC
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
(646) 522-4260
6. Existing General Plan Designation: Commercial (C)
7. Proposed General Plan Designation Mixed-Use Flex (MU-F)
8. Existing Zoning Designation: Planned Development Combining District (PD) General Commercial (GC)
9. Proposed Zoning Designation Mixed-Use Flex (MU-F)
8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regional Water Quality Control Board
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site consists of an approximately 3.82-acre triangular-shaped parcel located at 18545-18565 Monterey Road in the City of Morgan Hill, California. The site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 764-10-013 and -015. The City’s General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial (C), and the zoning designations for the site are Planned Development Combining District (PD) and General Commercial (CG).
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 October 2022
Currently, the majority of the site is undeveloped ruderal grassland consisting of various shrubbery scattered throughout and small trees located along the eastern and western borders. The project site also includes 28 parking spaces for the existing Starbucks located to the northwest and an existing storm-drain easement.
The project site is bounded by Monterey Road along the east, and south and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks along the west. A commercial center is located immediately to the north. Additional surrounding land uses include an existing apartment complex and the under-construction Butterfield Village Apartments project to the east; undeveloped land to the west, beyond the UPRR tracks and single-family residences further to the west, beyond Old Monterey Road; the Monterey Gateway project to the south, beyond the UPRR tracks and Monterey Road; and the Butterfield Retention Basin to the southeast, across Monterey Road.
10. Project Description Summary:
The Gates Project (proposed project) would include construction of seven residential buildings with a total of 44 townhomes, as well as one mixed-use building with five townhomes, four 665-square-foot commercial spaces, and one 1,350 square foot commercial space. The proposed project would include a children’s play area, bocce ball courts, a seating plaza, and barbeque areas, as well as a detention basin in the southern portion of the site. Each townhome would include a two-car garage, with 25 uncovered parking spaces provided throughout the site. Primary site access would be provided by Monterey Road through a new driveway to the site, as well as through the internal roadways that would connect to the commercial center to the north. The project would also include widening and improvements of the Monterey Road frontage. In addition, the existing man-made, storm-drain easement that bisects the property would be reconfigured as three 24-inch culverts and would be extended past Monterey Road to continue to convey off-site flows through the project site towards the west.
The project would require the approval of the following discretionary entitlements: General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use Flex; Rezone from PD and CG to Mixed Use Flex (MU-F); Tentative Parcel Map; and Design Permit.
11. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), and Senate Bill (SB) 18, project notification letters were distributed to a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the project area, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), on May 11, 2022. One response was received from the Tamien Nation. The tribe shared concern over the potentially sensitive area, and requested specific measures be taken in the event that archeological resources are found on-site. In addition, the tribe requested a copy of all reports referenced in the Archival Review. The City confirmed with the tribe that the City’s Conditions of Approval are still sufficient to the Tamien Nation, and forwarded the reports referenced in the Archival Review, as requested. As such, consultation was deemed complete.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 October 2022
B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used within this analysis:
1. Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Morgan Hill. 1995. Available at: http://www.mhcert.com/prepare/dam_failure.shtml. Accessed August 2022.
2. Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program. Available at:
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility. Accessed June 2022.
3. Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program. Available at:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience. Accessed June 2022.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1]. May 2017.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update.
Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-qualityact-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed June 2022.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
7. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
8. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed July 2022.
9. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary Details: Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill (27-AA-0005). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2636?siteID=1971.
Accessed July 2022.
10. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed June 2022.
11. California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.
November 2018.
12. California Historical Resources Information System. Record search results for the proposed Monterey Gateway Project located at 18110 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California. November 13, 2019.
13. City of Morgan Hill. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 7-4 to 7-7]. 2021.
14. City of Morgan Hill. 2035 General Plan Draft EIR. January 2016.
15. City of Morgan Hill. 2035 General Plan, City of Morgan Hill [pg. 4.5-17]. Adopted July 2016.
16. City of Morgan Hill. 2035 General Plan, City of Morgan Hill. Adopted July 2016.
17. City of Morgan Hill. City Council Staff Report 2163, Accept Report Regarding Wastewater System Needs and Rate Study Schedule. February 6, 2019.
18. City of Morgan Hill. City of Morgan Hill Wildland Urban Interface Map. March 2009.
19. City of Morgan Hill. Emergency Operations Plan. January 11, 2018.
20. City of Morgan Hill. Housing Element [Table 1-1]. Adopted February 18, 2015.
21. City of Morgan Hill. Morgan Hill 2035 Final Environmental Impact Report. Adopted July 2016.
22. City of Morgan Hill. Morgan Hill 2035 Final Environmental Impact Report [pg. 4.9-18].
Adopted July 2016.
23. Department of Conservation. State of California, Special Studies Zones, Mt. Madonna Quadrangle, Revised Official Map. Effective January 1, 1976.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 October 2022
24. Dwight Good, Assistant Chief Cooperative Fire Protection, Morgan Hill Fire Department.
Personal communication [phone] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. June 1, 2021.
25. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette.
Accessed July 2022.
26. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
27. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. VMT Assessment for the Proposed The Gates Mixed-Use Development in Morgan Hill, California. July 1, 2022.
28. Hexagon Transportation Consultations, Inc. Trip Generation and Operations Analysis for the Propose The Gates Mixed-Use Development in Morgan Hill, California. July 1, 2022.
29. Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC. Preliminary Biological Assessment, 18545-18565 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California. April 1, 2022.
30. Monarch Consulting Arborists. Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection: Morgan Hill APN - 764-10-013, APN - 764-10-015 (Monterey Road). October 17, 2022
31. Native American Heritage Commission. Monterey Gateway Project, Santa Clara County.
November 5, 2019.
32. Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority. 2019-20 Annual Report. 2021.
33. Santa Clara County. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, South County Airport. Amended November 16, 2016.
34. Santa Clara County. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, South County Airport. Amended November 16, 2016.
35. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2021 Congestion Management Program Document. December 2021.
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins [pg. 1-1]. November 2016.
37. Santa Clara Valley Water District. C1: Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit*. Available at:
https://www.valleywater.org/anderson-dam-project. Updated November 2018.
38. Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers. Monterey 8 Development Impact on Floodplain. June 2, 2022.
39. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf. Accessed April 2022.
40. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Additional Arsenic Assessment, 143348545-18565 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California, 95037. July 29, 2021.
41. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, 18545- 18565 Monterey Street, Morgan Hill, California, 95037. July 8, 2021.
42. Terrasearch, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Townhome and Commercial Development at 18605 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California. October 20, 2021.
43. Veneklasen Associates. Morgan Hill, California, Exterior Noise and Façade Acoustical Analysis, VA Project No. 4616-025. October 12, 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5 October 2022
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 October 2022
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Joey Dinh, Associate Planner City of Morgan Hill__________________ Printed Name For
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 October 2022
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this document are organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Where the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures sufficient to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels are prescribed. The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND would be implemented in conjunction with the proposed project, as required by CEQA. The mitigation measures would be incorporated into the proposed project through project conditions of approval.
The City would adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the proposed project in conjunction with project approval.
In July 2016, the City of Morgan Hill adopted the 2035 General Plan,1 as well as an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the updated General Plan.2 The General Plan EIR is a program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts associated with the General Plan. Applicable portions of the General Plan and General Plan EIR are incorporated by reference, as necessary, as part of this IS/MND. Project-specific technical reports have been prepared for the proposed project and form the basis of several technical sections of this IS/MND. All technical reports used in the preparation of this IS/MND are included as appendices.
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the project site’s current location and setting, as well as the proposed project components and the discretionary actions required for the project.
Project Location and Setting
The project site, identified by APNs 764-10-013 and -015, consists of a 3.82-acre triangularshaped parcel located at 18545-18565 Monterey Road in the City of Morgan Hill, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The City’s General Plan land use designation for the site is C, and the City’s zoning designations for the site are PD and CG.
Currently, the majority of the site is undeveloped ruderal grassland consisting of various shrubbery scattered throughout and small trees located along the eastern and western borders.
The project site also includes 28 parking spaces for the existing Starbucks located to the northwest and an existing man-made, storm-drain easement which drains into the Butterfield Retention Basin across Monterey Road. The topography of the site is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 105 meters above mean sea level (AMSL).
The project site is generally bounded by Monterey Road along the east and south, UPRR tracks along the west, and a commercial center to the north. Additional surrounding land uses include an existing apartment complex and the under-construction Butterfield Village Apartments project to the east; undeveloped land to the west, beyond the UPRR tracks and single-family residences further to the west, beyond Old Monterey Road; the Monterey Gateway project to the south, beyond the UPRR tracks and Monterey Road; and the Butterfield Retention Basin to the southeast, across Monterey Road.
1 City of Morgan Hill. 2035 General Plan, City of Morgan Hill. Adopted July 2016. 2 City of Morgan Hill. Morgan Hill 2035 Final Environmental Impact Report. Adopted July 2016.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 October 2022
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Site
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8 October 2022
Figure 2
Project Vicinity Map
Commercial
Center
Single-Family
Residences
Butterfield Village
Apartments Project
Butterfield
Retention Basin
Multi-Family
Residences
Monterey Gateway
Project
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9 October 2022
Project Components
The proposed project would provide four, 665 square foot flexible commercial spaces, one 1,350 square foot commercial space, seven residential buildings with a total of 49 solar, all-electric townhome-style condominiums, a children’s play area, bocce ball courts, seating plaza, and barbecue areas (see Figure 3). Residential units would range in size and bedroom count, each with a private two-car garage accessed by a common drive aisle or alleyway. Garage layouts would alternate between side-by-side and tandem garages and each home would be accessed from shared spaces, common open space areas, or streets. At least 15 percent of the total housing units would be made available to households at Moderate Income or 80 percent to 120 percent of Annual Median Income (AMI). Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed unit mix.
Tenants have not yet been identified for the commercial/retail spaces. For the purposes of this analysis, the building is assumed to include any of the uses allowable within the MU-F zoning district, as defined in Section 18.22.020 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed buildings would be limited to a maximum height of 35 feet, with a minimum of 10 feet devoted to roof elements.
Parking, Access, and Circulation
A total of 123 residential parking spaces would be provided on-site, including 98 garage spaces and 25 uncovered spaces. Nine of the uncovered parking spaces are reserved for clean-air vehicles, while two of the spaces would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. As Section
18.72.030.C (Guest Parking) of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code requires guest parking for new residential projects, the project would include 38 spaces on-site for residential and commercial guests, 17 of which would be shared and made accessible through the adjacent commercial property, as part of the access agreement with the project applicant and the commercial property owners, Shilla, Inc.
Table 1
Proposed Unit Mix
Plan Number
Total Living Space
(sf Per Unit) Total Number of Units
Plan 1 (3 BD/3 BTH) 1,403 18
Plan 1X (3 BD/3 BTH)* 1,403 8
Plan 2 (3 BD/3 BTH) 1,697 8
Plan 2X (3 BD/3 BTH)** 1,760 10
Plan 3 (3 BD/2.5 BTH with
DEN or OPT 4 BD/4 BTH) 2,310 3
Commercial 1 ±665 4
Plan 3 (3 BD/2.5 BTH with
DEN or 4 BD/4 BTH) 2,310 5
Commercial 2 1,350 1
Total: 49 DU/5 CU
Notes:
• * ADA-compliant units (Four Total)
• ** ADA-compliant unit (One Total)
• DU = Dwelling Unit
• CU = Commercial Unit
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10 October 2022
Figure 3
Preliminary Site Plan
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 October 2022
Primary site access would be provided by a new full-access driveway along the west side of Monterey Road. Secondary access would be provided through the commercial center to the north pursuant to an access agreement with the adjacent property owner. The commercial center is accessed from the existing driveway at Monterey Road, as well as at the Monterey Road and Cochrane Road intersection. The proposed residential units would be organized around an internal circulation system consisting of private drive aisles. Pedestrian sidewalks would be provided between the buildings, opposite of the internal circulation network, and would connect to the multiple common spaces throughout the site including a new separated sidewalk along the Monterey Road frontage, connecting to the existing pedestrian sidewalk along the adjacent commercial center to the north (see Figure 4).
Utilities
Water for the proposed development would be provided by the City through a new connection to an existing eight-inch water line in Monterey Road, and sewer service would be provided by the City through a new connection to an existing six-inch line in the commercial center to the north (see Figure 5). Stormwater would be collected by a series of drain inlets along the internal circulation system and transported, by way of underground storm drains to the bioretention/detention pond in the southern portion of the project site, where stormwater would be treated and discharged to the existing headwall along the western boundary of the project site, adjacent to the UPRR tracks. The existing storm-drain easement on-site would be re-configured into three, 24-inch culverts to avoid disrupting the flow of runoff from neighboring properties that currently flow through the open ditch on the project site. Treated water from the existing Butterfield detention basin, located 0.3-mile southeast along Monterey Road, and the existing multi-family residences to the north, would be directed to flow across the site into the existing headwall mentioned above. On-site stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces from the proposed project would not enter the proposed culvert (additional details are provided in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND). Each residence would include a solar-energy system sufficient to produce 100 percent of the electricity demand for the residence.
It should be noted that the proposed project would not use natural gas, as natural gas is prohibited in all new construction within Morgan Hill effective March 1, 2020, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2306.
Landscaping and Common Space
Pursuant to Section 18.74.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, landscaping would be provided throughout the site in accordance with the City’s Standard Details for Construction. The project would include multiple common space areas throughout the site including, but not be limited to, a children’s play area, bocce ball courts, seating plaza, and barbecue areas. The locations of the proposed outdoor common area amenities are shown in Figure 4. Project landscaping would consist of native drought-tolerant plant species and hydro‐zones would be used to make efficient use of water. Planting plans would include new trees and shrubs similar to those within neighboring developments.
Project Frontage Improvements
To facilitate access, the proposed project would include the widening of Monterey Road along the project frontage east of Building 7, east of the new full-access driveway. The roadway widening would vary between two- and 15.85-feet and would also include curb and gutter improvements along the project frontage.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 October 2022
Figure 4
Landscaping/Outdoor Amenities Plan
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13 October 2022
Figure 5
Preliminary Site Utility Plan
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14 October 2022
General Plan Amendment/Rezone
The proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of the project site from Commercial to Mixed Use Flex. In addition, the project would include a Rezone to change the site’s zoning designation from PD and CG to MU-F.
Vesting Tentative Map
The proposed project includes a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the project site into two parcels (see Figure 6). Parcel One would be south of Jarvis Drive, in the center of the project site, and would have an area of approximately 3.815 acres. Parcel B would encompass Buildings 1-3, southeast of the developed commercial area.
Design Review
The proposed project would require the City’s approval of a Design Permit. A Design Permit is a discretionary action that enables the City to ensure that the proposed development exhibits high quality design consistent with the general plan and any other applicable specific plan or area plan adopted by the City Council. The Design Permit process is also intended to ensure that new development and uses are compatible with their surroundings and minimize negative impacts on neighboring properties.
Requested/Required Entitlements
The proposed project would require the City’s approval of the following entitlements:
• Adoption of the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • General Plan Amendment from C to Mixed Use Flex;
• Rezone from PD and CG to MU-F;
• Vesting Tentative Map; and
• Design Permit.
In addition, if the General Plan Amendment and Rezone were to be approved, the project site would be located within the Monterey Road Corridor for which a Block Level Master Plan (BLMP) is generally required for all projects wanting to develop within the block, subject to certain requirements of State law established by California SB 330.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15 October 2022
Figure 6
Vesting Tentative Map
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16 October 2022
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of 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?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Discussion
a,c. The Morgan Hill General Plan does not designate official scenic view corridors or vistas.
However, according to the General Plan, the hillsides that surround the City to the east and west are considered scenic. The project site is not located on a hillside or in the vicinity of a hillside and is surrounded by existing development to the north, south, and west, as well as planned development further east across Monterey Road. Furthermore, while views of the eastern hills as well as views of the western ridges of the Uvas Canyon County Park are visible by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians travelling along Monterey Road and Old Monterey Road respectively, the roadways are not considered scenic vistas.3 Additionally, views are partially obscured by existing vegetation and development along the roadways.
The project site is primarily undeveloped; however, as discussed above surrounding uses include single-family residences to the east and north, as well as commercial uses along the northern boundary of the project site, and planned development east of Monterey Road. Therefore, the site is in a relatively urbanized area. In accordance with CEQA checklist question 1.c., the relevant threshold is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The proposed project is subject to a Design Permit in accordance with Morgan Hill Municipal Code Section 18.108.040, which requires that the proposed project be consistent with the Design Permit findings. In addition, while the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, the site is currently designated for 3 It is important to distinguish between public and private views. Private views are views seen from privately-owned land and are typically viewed by individual viewers, including views from private residences. Public views are experienced by the collective public. These include views of significant landscape features and along scenic roads.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) case law has established that only public views, not private views, are protected under CEQA. For example, in Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 488] the court determined that “we must differentiate between adverse impacts upon particular persons and adverse impacts upon the environment of persons in general. As recognized by the court in Topanga Beach Renters Assn. v. Department of General Services (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 188 [129 Cal.Rptr. 739]: ‘[A]ll government activity has some direct or indirect adverse effect on some persons. The issue is not whether [the project] will adversely affect particular persons but whether [the project] will adversely affect the environment of persons in general.’” Therefore, it is appropriate to focus the aesthetic impact analysis on potential impacts to public views.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17 October 2022
commercial development. Therefore, the City has generally anticipated the development of the site with urban uses. As such, changes to the visual character and quality of the site have been evaluated and approved by the City. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would include landscaping elements to screen public views of the site and would be visually compatible with the surrounding development.
Based on the above, the General Plan does not designate any official scenic vistas within the City of Morgan Hill, and the project site is in an urbanized area. In addition, the design review process would ensure that all project elements are consistent with the City’s Architectural Review Handbook. Thus, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) map of Santa Clara County prepared for the Scenic Highway Mapping System, officially designated State or County scenic highways do not occur in the project vicinity.4 Because the project site is not located in the vicinity of any State scenic highway, the proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Therefore, no impact related to damaging scenic resources within a State scenic highway would occur. d. The project site does not currently contain any existing development and thus, with the exception of streetlights along the Monterey Road, relatively minimal sources of light and glare exist within the project vicinity. Development of the proposed project would increase the amount of light including, but not limited to, headlights on cars using the on-site street system, exterior light fixtures, and interior light spilling through windows. However, the existing development to the north, south, and west of the site currently generates light and glare in the area.
In addition, new sources of lighting would be required to comply with the standards set forth in Section G of the City’s Architectural Review Handbook, Section 18.76.060 (Glare), and Section 15.40.310 (Open parking lots) of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, which includes such requirements as cut-off lenses to direct light downward and minimum maintained lighting on parking surfaces. Compliance with such would help to ensure that the light and glare created by the proposed project would be consistent with the levels of light and glare currently emitted in the surrounding developed environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new sources of substantial light or glare to the site which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. 4 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
Accessed June 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 October 2022
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
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?
Discussion
a,e. The project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).5 Given the designation of the site as Urban and Built-Up Land, development of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, or otherwise result in the loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use.
Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. b. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not zoned for agricultural uses.
Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.
5 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed October 2019.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19 October 2022
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Morgan Hill is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation. The USEPA has not yet approved a request for redesignation of the SFBAAB; therefore, the SFBAAB remains in nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5.
In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.
The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 October 2022
continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. For development projects, BAAQMD establishes significance thresholds for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr).
The thresholds are listed in Table 2. Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for construction and operational emissions of ROG, NOX, or PM10, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Table 2
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.
Particulate matter can be split into two categories: fugitive and exhaust. The BAAQMD thresholds of significance for exhaust are presented in Table 2. It should be noted that BAAQMD does not maintain quantitative thresholds for fugitive emissions of PM10 or PM2.5, rather, BAAQMD requires all projects within the district’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2020.4.0 – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, compliance with the 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), etc. Where projectspecific information is available, such information should be applied in the model.
Accordingly, the proposed project’s modeling assumes the following project and/or sitespecific information:
• Construction would begin in July 2023 and occur over approximately two years; • During the grading phase, approximately 3,926 cubic yards of material would be exported from the project site;
• Trip generation rates were adjusted to be consistent with the assumptions included in the Trip Generation and Operations Analysis prepared by Hexagon; • The proposed residential units would not include fireplaces; • The project site is located within 0.3-mile of the nearest transit stop; and • The project would include a 20 percent indoor and 10 percent outdoor water conservation strategy; and
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21 October 2022
• The project would comply with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California CBSC.6
The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations and the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions are provided below. All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this IS/MND.
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s maximum unmitigated construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance.
Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 3.88 54 NO
NOX 27.56 54 NO
PM10* 1.27 82 NO
PM2.5* 1.17 54 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD has not yet adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, July 2022 (see Appendix A).
All projects within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs, which would be required by the City as conditions of approval:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five 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.
6 It is noted that the 2022 California CBSC will go into effect on January 1, 2023, which is prior to when construction of the proposed project would be initiated. However, 2022 California CBSC would include more stringent requirements as compared to the 2019 CBSC. As a result, the modeling included herein provides a conservative analysis.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22 October 2022
7. 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.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs listed above for the project’s construction activities would help to minimize construction-related emissions.
Because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for construction emissions, project construction would not result in a significant air quality impact.
Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 4. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. As such, the proposed project would not result in a significant air quality impact during operations.
Table 4
Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 4.13 0.61 54 10 NO
NOX 2.59 0.43 54 10 NO
PM10* 0.88 0.02 82 15 NO
PM2.5* 0.88 0.02 54 10 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD has not yet adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, July 2022 (see Appendix A).
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 2 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 2, the proposed project’s
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23 October 2022
emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Because the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. According to BAAQMD, if a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project may be considered consistent with the air quality plans.
Because the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of regional air quality plans.
Because the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. Within the project vicinity, the nearest sensitive receptors include the single-family residences to the north, south and west across the UPRR tracks, with the closest residence located approximately 144 feet north of the site.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and TACs, as well as regional effects of emissions of criteria pollutants, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood. CO emissions are particularly related to traffic levels.
In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 October 2022
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).
The City’s General Plan serves to provide traffic forecasts to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). While the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, because the site is currently designated for the development of urban uses, traffic associated with the proposed project would be similar to traffic associated with buildout of the site under the existing land use and zoning designations.
As such, traffic associated with development of the site has generally been anticipated, and the project would be consistent with the VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP).7 Based on traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, peak hour traffic volumes at the nearest major intersection near the project site are between 2,697 and 3,147. The proposed project would result in the addition of 55 net new AM peak-hour trips and 84 net new PM peak-hour trips to the roadway system under existing plus project conditions. Therefore, traffic associated with the proposed development would not increase traffic volumes at any affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
Furthermore, areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited due to tunnels, underpasses, or similar features do not exist in the project area. Therefore, based on the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for localized CO emissions, the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health hazards.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, gas dispensing facilities, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk. As noted above, the nearest existing sensitive receptor to the project site is the single-family residence that is surrounded by the project site to the west, north, and east.
As part of the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA) case, the California Supreme Court granted limited review to the question:
Under what circumstances, if any, does CEQA require an analysis of how existing 7 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2021 Congestion Management Program Document. December 2021.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25 October 2022
environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project? In the opinion published on December 17, 2015, the Supreme Court looked closely at the language and legislative intent in CEQA, and found that CEQA does not provide “enough of a basis to suggest that the term ‘environmental effects’ […] is meant, as a general matter, to encompass these broader considerations associated with the health and safety of a project’s future residents or users.” Based on the Supreme Court opinion, it would be considered appropriate to evaluate a project’s potentially significant exacerbating effects on existing environmental hazards – effects that arise because the project brings “development and people into the area affected.” The Supreme Court stated that even in those specific instances where evaluation of a project’s potentially significant exacerbating effects on existing environmental hazards is appropriate, the evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by the exacerbated conditions is still compelled by the project’s impact on the environment, and not the environment’s impact on the project.8
Considering the court ruling, while the proposed project would be considered a sensitive receptor, consideration of impacts from existing TAC sources on future residents, such as the nearby train tracks, is outside of the scope of CEQA. Thus, this environmental analysis appropriately focuses on the potential for the proposed project to result in TAC emissions that could affect the existing nearby sensitive receptors.
The proposed project does not include any operations that would be considered a substantial source of TACs. Accordingly, operations of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of TACs.
Short-term, construction-related activities would result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions.
Construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project is estimated to be approximately two years.
All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. In addition, only portions of the site would be disturbed at a time throughout the construction period, with operation of construction equipment occurring intermittently throughout the course of a day rather than continuously at any one location on the project site. Operation of construction equipment within portions of the development area would allow for the dispersal of emissions, and would ensure that construction-activity is not continuously occurring in the portions of the project site closest to existing receptors. Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated 8 Alameda County Superior Court. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. A135335 and A136212. Filed August 12, 2016.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26 October 2022
emissions, the potential for any one sensitive receptor in the area to be exposed to concentrations of pollutants for a substantially extended period of time would be low.
Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to prepare, and include on all site development and grading plans, a management plan detailing strategies for control of noise, dust and vibration, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the project. Pursuant to Section 18.76.040 (Air Contaminants) of the City’s Municipal Code, the management plan must include all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the City’s standard conditions for construction activity. The City of Morgan Hill Development Services Department would ensure that the BAAQMD’s BCMMs, listed under section “a,b” above, would be noted on project construction drawings prior to issuance of a building permit or approval of improvement plans.
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Criteria pollutant emissions have the ability to cause negative health effects. As discussed under section ‘a’ above, the AAQS presented are health-based standards designed to ensure safe levels of criteria pollutants that avoid specific adverse health effects. Because the SFBAAB is designated as nonattainment for State and federal eight-hour ozone and State PM10 standards, the BAAQMD, along with other air districts in the SFBAAB region, has adopted federal and state attainment plans to demonstrate progress towards attainment of the AAQS. Full implementation of the attainment plans would ensure that the AAQS are attained and sensitive receptors within the SFBAAB are not exposed to excess concentrations of criteria pollutants. The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the AAQS, and are designed to aid the district in implementing the applicable attainment plans to achieve attainment of the AAQS. Thus, if a project’s criteria pollutant emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s emission thresholds of significance, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts, thereby delaying attainment of the AAQS. Because the AAQSs are representative of safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects, a project’s hinderance of attainment of the AAQS could be considered to contribute towards regional health effects associated with the existing nonattainment status of ozone and PM standards.
However, as discussed above, the proposed project would not result in exceedance of the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s adopted attainment plans nor would the proposed project inhibit attainment of regional AAQS. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not contribute towards regional health effects associated with the existing nonattainment status of ozone and PM10 standards.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO, TACs, or criteria air pollutants associated with construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Emissions such as those leading to odors have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors within the project area. Pollutants of principal concern include emissions leading
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27 October 2022
to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in sections ‘a’ through ‘c’ above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.
Pursuant to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.9 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on several variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.
Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantification of significant odor impacts is relatively difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses.
Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks, which can create odors associated with diesel fumes, which could be found to be objectionable. However, as discussed above, construction activities would be temporary, and operation of construction equipment would be regulated and intermittent. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize air pollutant emissions, as well as any associated odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not occur during construction activities or affect a substantial number of people.
In addition, the BAAQMD rules and regulations would act to reduce construction related dust, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, the project site would not include any exposed topsoil. Thus, project operations would not include any substantial sources of dust.
For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1].
May 2017.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28 October 2022
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
The following is based primarily on a Biological Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC (JMC) (see Appendix B).10 a. The project site is currently flat to gently sloping undeveloped grassland consisting of nonnative annual vegetation and seasonal wetlands with scattered native and non-native trees and shrubs, particularly along the edges of the property. The site is regularly disked and mowed for fuel reduction. Three depressional wetlands, three converging wetland drainage ditches, one stormwater detention basin, and a small patch of cattails associated with the stormwater detention, are located in the project area (see Figure 7).
As noted in the Biological Assessment, a number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under State and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing or designated as “species of special concern” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively, such plant and wildlife species are referred to as “special-status species.” For the purpose of this analysis, special-status species are defined to include the following:
10 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC. Preliminary Biological Assessment, 18545-18565 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California. April 1, 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29 October 2022
Figure 7
Land Cover Types
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 October 2022
• Plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the State and federal Endangered Species Acts;
• CDFW Species of Special Concern;
• CDFW Fully-Protected Species; and
• Plant species on CNPS Lists 1 and 2.
In addition, nesting birds and raptors are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA covers take of whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP), which provides take authorization for 18 listed and non-listed species (i.e., covered species). In addition, the SCVHP includes conservation measures to protect the species covered by the SCVHP, as well as a conservation strategy designed to mitigate impacts on covered species and contribute to the recovery of the species in the study area. Compliance with the SCVHP is discussed under question ‘f’ below.
As part of the Biological Assessment, a literary review was conducted to evaluate the potential for special-status species to occur within the project area. In addition to a literature review, the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California were queried for occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, a reconnaissance level survey of the site was conducted on September 17, 2021. Specialstatus plant or wildlife species were not found during the site survey. However, two bird species identified by the CNDDB both have the potential to nest at the project site.
Additionally, although not documented by the CNDDB, the potential exists for two additional special-status bird species to occur on site.
Special-Status Plant Species
According to the CNDDB, a total of 15 special-status plant species have been documented within the project region. Of the 15 special-status plant species identified in the Biological Assessment, 11 require, or primarily occur, on serpentine soils, which do not exist on the site. The remaining four species grow in coastal sage scrub and foothill woodland chaparral, which is not present on the site. Given the lack of suitable on-site habitat, the aforementioned species are not anticipated to occur on the project site. In addition, the site has experienced ongoing disturbance such as disking and mowing. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to special-status plant species.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
According to the Biological Assessment, records for 11 special-status wildlife species are documented within three miles of the project site. Such species include: Crotch's bumblebee (Bombus crotchii), western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis), the Central California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), Opler’s longhorn moth (Adela oplerella), Bay-checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), American badger (Taxidea taxus), San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens),
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31 October 2022
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). The September 2021 survey did not identify any evidence of special-status wildlife species onsite.
In addition, although not documented in the CNDDB search, various other nesting and migratory birds protected by the MBTA have been documented within the region including Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird. The potential for such species to be impacted by the proposed project is discussed further below.
Crotch Bumblebee and Western Bumblebee
Two species of bumble bees that may occur regionally have been petitioned to be added to the California Endangered Species Act and are currently under consideration by CDFW, including the crotch bumble bee and the western bumble bee. Neither species currently has State listing status, but both are included in this analysis in the event that the listing request is granted. Both species have colonial nests in underground cavities and are unlikely to occur on the site due to current management practices (routine and regular disking). Disking has the effect of removing potential flowering plants required as a food source to these species, as well as regularly disturbing upper horizons of soils (i.e., not conducive to supporting underground cavities). A historic (1940) record of western bumble bee is recorded in the CNDDB within the vicinity of Morgan Hill, and both species may occur regionally. However, the site does not represent habitat for either species due to lack of underground nesting opportunities and lack of flowering plants. Therefore, development of the site is not expected to result in any effect to either bee species and further survey is not necessary.
Special-Status Amphibians and Reptiles
Three of the 11 special-status species require specialized habitats that occur within the site, including the presence of ponding water that occurs periodically or seasonally both within the project site and across Monterey Road, at the Butterfield Retention Basin. Such species include California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle. However, the features are unlikely to provide habitat for California tiger salamander because the species is isolated from known populations of the species and habitat corridors are not present for existing populations. The same is true for California redlegged frog and western pond turtle, both of which require ponded water for survival.
Known populations of the California red-legged frog and western pond turtle are currently restricted to the undeveloped foothills surrounding the City of Morgan Hill, and the project area is isolated from both species populations by dense urban development. Therefore, development of the project site is not expected to result in any effect to California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or western pond turtle.
A historic record (1894) for the coast horned lizard, now referred to as Blainville's horned lizard was documented within the vicinity of the City; however, the 1894 record only noted occurrence for the species within approximately nine miles of the project site, with other modern records (1994 through 2009) occurring in the undeveloped areas surrounding the City. Due to the extensive development surrounding the project site, coast horned lizard is not expected to occur on-site. Development of the project site is not expected to result in any substantial adverse effects to coast horned lizard.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32 October 2022
Opler’s Longhorn Moth and Bay Checkerspot Butterfly
Opler’s longhorn moth and Bay checkerspot butterfly are found in association with serpentine soils, which the site does not contain. Therefore, development of the project site is not expected to result in any effect to Opler’s longhorn moth or Bay checkerspot butterfly.
American Badger and San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
American badger and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat are not covered under the SCVHCP but have a State ranking of vulnerable (American badger) and imperiled (San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat). During the site survey, middens for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat were not observed; middens are usually obvious when present and consist of large collections of twigs and wood debris. Similarly, evidence of American badgers, such as burrows or dens, was not noted on the site, and the regular disking of the project site would prevent establishment of den sites and effectively reduce prey.
Further, neither San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nor American badger are likely to emigrate to the site due to lack of habitat connectivity and proximity to development. The site is completely surrounded by urban development and does not include natural corridors to existing habitat. Thus, development of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to American badger or San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat.
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owls do not require a specific vegetation cover or soil type and typically use vacated burrows dug by small mammals as nesting habitat; however, burrowing owls are also known to use artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and piles of concrete pieces in urban areas. The project site is located outside of the SCVHP burrowing owl fee area and is not identified in the SCVHP as “Occupied Nesting Burrowing Owl Habitat”, “Potential Burrowing Owl Nesting/Overwintering Habitat Depending on Site Conditions”, or “Overwintering Only Habitat”.
However, according to the Biological Assessment, the project site should be considered potential nesting/overwintering habitat given that California ground squirrel burrows were found during the September 17 site visit. Such burrows represent potential nest sites for western burrowing owls. Additionally, burrowing owls have been documented within a mile of the project area. As such, should site grading occur during the nesting season for the species (February 1 through August 31), nests and nestlings potentially present on the site could be adversely affected by the proposed development, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
According to the Biological Assessment, the existing on-site trees represent potential nesting habitat for nesting and migratory birds protected by the MBTA, such as specialstatus white-tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, and tricolored blackbird. White-tailed kite is a CDFW Fully-Protected Species. Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird are State-listed threatened species.
The closest documented occurrence for white-tailed kite is approximately 2.25 miles north of the project area. In addition to the project site representing potential nesting habitats for the aforementioned birds, the project site also represents potential foraging habitat for white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk; however, records of Swainson’s hawk were not found within a 3-mile radius. Furthermore, tricolored blackbirds may encounter nesting
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33 October 2022
habitats at the property located east of Monterey Road at the Butterfield Retention Basin and may forage at the project site. The initial survey of the site found that the southern end of the site is within 250 feet of the Butterfield Retention Basin, which represents potential nesting substrate. Therefore, the project has potential to affect white-tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, and tricolored blackbirds.
Project construction activities, including initial site grading, soil excavation, and/or tree and vegetation removal occurring during the nesting period for migratory birds (typically between February 1 to August 31) could therefore have the potential to result in nest abandonment or death of any live eggs or young, should migratory birds or their nests be present within or near the project site. In such an event, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact.
Conclusion
Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects to special-status plants, as the disturbed nature of the site and the lack of suitable habitat precludes the likely occurrence of such species on the site.
However, the site provides potential habitat for burrowing owl and nesting migratory birds and raptors protected by the MBTA, including the special-status white-tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, and tricolored blackbird. Such species could occur on the project site during construction activities associated with the proposed project. As such, the project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status-species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Burrowing Owl
IV-1(a). Consistent with Condition 15 of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys in all suitable habitat areas as identified during habitat surveys. The purpose of the preconstruction surveys is to document the presence or absence of burrowing owls on the project site, particularly in areas within 250 feet of construction activity.
To maximize the likelihood of detecting owls, the preconstruction survey shall last a minimum of three hours. The survey shall begin 1 hour before sunrise and continue until 2 hours after sunrise (3 hours total) or begin 2 hours before sunset and continue until 1 hour after sunset. Additional time may be required for large project sites. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted (if owls are detected on the first survey, a second survey is not needed). All owls observed shall be counted and their location shall be mapped.
Surveys shall conclude less than 2 calendar days prior to construction.
Therefore, the project proponent must begin surveys less than 4 days prior to construction (2 days of surveying plus up to 2 days between surveys and
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 October 2022
construction). To avoid last minute changes in schedule or contracting that may occur if burrowing owls are found, the project proponent may also conduct a preliminary survey up to 14 days before construction. This preliminary survey may count as the first of the two required surveys as long as the second survey concludes less than 2 calendar days in advance of construction. All survey results shall be submitted to the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Department prior to the start of construction. If burrowing owls are not identified, further action is not required.
IV-1(b). Should burrowing owls be found on the site during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), exclusion zones, with a 250-foot radius from occupied burrows, shall be established. All development-related activities shall occur outside of the exclusion area until the young have fledged. Establishment of the exclusion area shall be determined by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Department.
IV-1(c). If pre-construction surveys are conducted during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) and burrowing owls are observed on the site, the project proponent shall establish a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer around occupied burrows as determined by a qualified biologist.
Construction activities outside of the 250-foot buffer shall be allowed.
Construction activities within the non-disturbance buffer shall be allowed if the following criteria are met in order to prevent owls from abandoning important overwintering sites:
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction).
• The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl foraging behavior in response to construction activities.
• If any change in owl foraging behavior occurs as a result of construction activities, such activities shall cease within the 250- foot buffer.
• If the owls are gone for at least one week, the project proponent may request approval from the Habitat Agency that a qualified biologist excavate usable burrows to prevent owls from reoccupying the site. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer zone shall be removed, and construction may continue. Monitoring shall continue as described above for the non-breeding season as long as the burrow remains active.
Passive relocation of owls shall not be permitted unless the positive growth trend described in Section 5.4.6 of the SCVHP is achieved and all passive relocation measures identified in the SCVHP are implemented. The project applicant may choose to obtain an exception that would allow for passive relocation, in which case an application shall be submitted to the Habitat Agency along with a passive relocation plan in accordance with Section
6.6.1, Condition 15, Exceptions to Passive Relocation Prohibition, of the
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35 October 2022
SCVHP. The Habitat Agency shall have the final authority to grant or deny the requested exception.
Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
IV-2. If construction is proposed during breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting survey for raptors and other protected migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, consistent with conditions set forth by the SCVHP, and submitted to the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Department for review no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. Pre-construction surveys during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31) are not necessary for birds, including roosting raptors, as they are expected to abandon their roosts during construction. If these species are deemed absent from the area, no further mitigation is required, and construction may occur within 14 days following the survey during the early nesting season (February to May) and within 30 days following the survey during the late nesting season (June to August).
If nesting migratory birds or raptors are detected on or adjacent to the site during the survey, a suitable construction-free buffer shall be established around all active nests. The precise dimension of the buffer (250-foot minimum for certain raptors) shall be determined by the qualified biologist at that time and may vary depending on location, topography, type of construction activity, and species. The buffer areas shall be enclosed with temporary fencing, and construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed setback areas. Buffers shall remain in place for the duration of the breeding season or until it has been confirmed by a qualified biologist that all chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents.
Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite
IV-3. If construction activities occur between February 1 and August 31, the applicant shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000 guidelines (SHTAC 2000), or current guidance. Surveys shall cover a minimum of a 0.5-mile radius around the construction area. If nesting Swainson’s hawks or white-tailed kites are detected, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established as determined by the qualified biologist but shall not be less than 500 feet. Buffers shall be maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.
If potential nesting trees are to be removed during construction activities, removal shall take place outside of Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite nesting season and CDFW will develop a plan to replace known nest trees at a ratio of 3:1. Potential nest trees shall include those trees with current (at the time of the surveys) or documented historic use by Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kites for nesting. If replacement planting is implemented, monitoring shall be conducted annually for 5 years to assess the mitigation’s effectiveness. The performance standard for the mitigation will be 65% survival of all replacement plantings.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 October 2022
Tricolored Blackbird
IV-4. Consistent with Condition 17 of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a qualified biologist shall investigate whether the nearby Butterfield Retention Basin has been occupied by nesting tricolored blackbirds within the past 5 years. This shall include checking the California Natural Diversity Database, contacting local experts, and conducting a preconstruction survey in all accessible areas identified as supporting potential tricolored blackbird nesting habitat. The survey shall document the current, and to the extent possible, historical presence or absence of nesting colonies of tricolored blackbird. Surveys shall conclude no more than two calendar days prior to construction. If a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is present or has been within the past 5 years, a 250-foot buffer shall be applied from the outer edge of all hydrophytic vegetation associated with the site and the site plus buffer shall be avoided. The Wildlife Agencies shall be notified immediately of nest locations. All survey results shall be submitted to the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Department prior to the start of construction. If current or recent tricolored blackbird nesting colonies are not identified, further action is not required.
If construction takes place during the breeding season when an active colony is present, a qualified biologist shall monitor construction to ensure that the 250-foot buffer zone is enforced. If monitoring indicates that construction outside of the buffer is affecting a breeding colony, the buffer shall be increased if space allows (e.g., move staging areas farther away).
If space does not allow, construction shall cease until the colony abandons the site or until the end of the breeding season, whichever occurs first. The biological monitor shall also conduct training of construction personnel on the avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that tricolored blackbirds fly into an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).
b,c. Wetlands, trenches, potential waters of the U.S, or other aquatic features were identified on the project site during the site visits conducted by JMC. Seasonal freshwater emergent wetlands of the U.S./State were mapped in the project area, including six separate wetlands, and cover approximately 0.52-acre of the project site. The community is distributed relatively evenly across the site. However, as previously noted, the site has been subject to ongoing disturbance associated with disking and mowing and has been leveled relatively flat.
The on-site wetlands consist of three interconnected drainage ditches with in-channel wetlands, a stormwater detention basin, three depressional wetlands, and a small wetland located at the detention basin discharge pipe. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued an Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the project site by letter on February 1, 2022, identifying only one 0.042-acre wetland as a water of the U.S. The other five wetlands were determined to be isolated wetlands and, therefore, not waters of the U.S. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is expected to consider all six wetlands on the site to be waters of the State.
Furthermore, the project area derives local hydrology from direct precipitation and off-site developments. The two smaller drainage ditches and the stormwater detention basin were
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37 October 2022
constructed in 2004-2005. One of the ditches channels runoff from the eastern side of Monterey Road, and the other ditch and the detention basin were constructed in order to manage runoff from the development to the north of the project site. The two smaller ditches converge with the old drainage ditch spanning the width of the property from Monterey Road to the railroad tracks. The old drainage ditch receives hydrology from the large off-site detention basin located southeast of the project area.
The project proposal includes filling the wetlands on site, which would therefore require Clean Water Act Section 404 and Section 401 permits from USACE and the RWQCB, respectively. As such, the applicant will be required to comply with any avoidance and minimization requirements in the Clean Water Act permit requirements, as well as Conditions 3 and 12 of the SCVHP which require that projects “Maintain Hydrologic Conditions and Protect Water Quality” through compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and avoid and minimize effects to local waterways, wetlands, and ponds. As avoiding permanent impacts to wetlands on-site is impracticable, wetland fees will be paid to cover the costs of compensatory mitigation required by the SCVHP.
Based on the above, without compliance with Clean Water Act permit requirements and SCVHP Conditions, the project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS or have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Thus, a potentially significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
IV-5. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other construction activities, the applicant shall obtain permit authorization, as determined by USACE, to fill waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (Section 404 Permit) from USACE. The Section 404 Permit application shall include an assessment of directly impacted, avoided, and preserved acreages of waters of the U.S. Mitigation measures may be developed as part of the Section 404 Permit to ensure the avoidance and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.. Final mitigation requirements shall be developed in consultation with USACE. A copy of the Section 404 Permit issued for the project shall be submitted to the City’s Development Services Department prior to commencement of grading, excavation, or other construction activities.
IV-6. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation or other construction activities, the project applicant shall submit to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board an application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements for Projects Involving Discharge of Dredged and/or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The project applicant shall be responsible for conducting all project activities in accordance with the permit provisions outlined in the applicable permit. A copy of the Water Quality Certification or waiver issued
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 October 2022
for the project shall be submitted to the City’s Development Services Department prior to commencement of grading, excavation, or other construction activities.
IV-7. Prior to the commencement of construction, the project applicant shall pay all applicable fees to the SCVHP to address permanent impacts to the project site and the 0.52-acre of onsite wetlands. In addition, the project shall comply with standards set forth by Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 12 of the SCVHP. Proof of payment of applicable fees shall be submitted and reviewed by the City’s Development Services Department. d. Movement corridors or landscape linkages are usually linear habitats that connect two or more habitat patches, providing assumed benefits to the species by reducing inbreeding depression and increasing the potential for recolonization of habitat patches. The project site is bounded on the west by Monterey Road, to the south by existing residential development, and to the east by a railroad corridor. West of Monterey Road is residential development. The site is not crossed by any waterways or greenways, or any open space or preserve. Due to the developed nature of the surrounding area, as well as physical barriers to wildlife movement along the project boundaries, the project site does not support any major wildlife movement corridors. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. Section 12.32.030 (Permit-Required) of the City of Morgan Hill’s Municipal Code requires the approval of a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any Ordinance Sized Trees, defined as a non-indigenous tree with a circumference greater than 40 inches (approximately 12.7-inch diameter), or any indigenous tree with circumference greater than 18 inches (approximately 5.7 inches diameter) measured at 4.5 feet vertically above the ground or immediately below the lowest branch. According to the City’s Code, nonindigenous tree species in residential zones and orchards (including individual fruit trees) are not considered Ordinance Sized Trees. Indigenous tree means any tree native to the Morgan Hill region, such as oaks (all types), Sycamore, California Bay, Madrone, or Alder.
An Arborist Report was prepared for the proposed project by Monarch Consulting Arborists (see Appendix B).11 Based on the Arborist Report, a total of 13 trees are located on the project site. Five trees were determined to be in good condition, six were determined to be in fair condition, and two were determined to be in poor condition. In addition, six trees were determined to have fair suitability for preservation and seven were determined to have poor suitability for preservation. Trees poorly suited for preservation included invasive species such as the acacia, willow and cottonwood, along with trees that were determined to have poor structure or health such as the black oak.
According to the Arborist Report, eight trees would be highly impacted by the proposed project and would require removal, as shown in Table 5. The remaining five trees, located at the top or on the slope adjacent to Monterey Road, would not require removal.
Nonetheless, the City would require replacement plantings for all eight trees proposed for removal, and the remaining on-site trees would require protection. 11 Monarch Consulting Arborists. Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection: Morgan Hill APN - 764-10-013, APN - 764-10-015 (Monterey Road). October 17, 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39 October 2022
Table 5
Trees Proposed for Removal
Tree
Species
I.D.
Number
Trunk
Diameter
(Inches)
Height
(Feet)
Canopy
Diameter
(Feet) Condition Suitability
Valley Oak
(Quercus
lobata)
401 5, 5 10 10 Good Fair
Black Oak
(Quercus
kelloggii)
402 13, 13, 11,
16, 18 45 35 Fair Poor
London
plane
(Platanus x
hispanica)
403 10 25 10 Good Fair
Willow (Salix
alba) 409 10, 8, 8, 8,6, 6 40 25 Fair Poor
Cottonwood
(Populus
trichocarpa)
410 9 45 25 Fair Poor
Silver
Acacia
(Acacia
dealbata)
411
7, 8, 5, 5,
5, 5, 5, 5,
3, 3
35 25 Poor Poor
Silver
Acacia
(Acacia
dealbata)
412 6, 6, 5 35 25 Fair Poor
Silver
Acacia
(Acacia
dealbata)
413 5, 7 35 25 Fair Poor
Source:Monarch Consulting Arborists, 2022. (Appendix B).
Therefore, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact related to conflicting with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, particularly related to Chapter 12.32 (Restrictions on Removal of Significant Trees) of the City’s Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IV-8. The project applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any Ordinance Sized Trees as defined by the City. The project applicant shall mitigate for the removal of the Ordinance Sized Trees located within the project site, as identified in the Arborist Report prepared for the proposed project, by providing an on-site replacement planting at a minimum 1:1 ratio with 15-gallon minimum size trees.
For the Ordinance Sized Trees to be preserved as part of the project, pursuant to the Arborist Report prepared for the proposed project by
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 October 2022
Monarch Consulting Arborists, the project applicant shall implement Tree Preservation Recommendations, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Include tree identification numbers, protection fence locations, and preservation and guidelines on all the project plans, or alternatively create a separate plan sheet that includes all tree protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan;”
• Place a protection fence around the trees to be retained at a radius of eight times the diameter at breast height (DBH);
• Install temporary irrigation or soaker hoses in the Tree Protection Zones (TPZs);
• Monitor watering times or amounts to ensure adequate soil saturation;
• All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices;
• Implement all general tree protection guidelines included in Appendix D of the Arborist Report, including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a tree’s drip line or designated TPZ/Critical Root Zone (CRZ);
• Provide a copy of the Arborist Report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect; and
• Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances.
The above measures shall be included in the notes on construction drawings, subject to review and approval by the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Department, prior to initiation of construction. f. As noted above, the project site is located within the boundaries of the SCVHP permit area. The SCVHP was developed through a partnership between Santa Clara County, the cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the Santa Clara VTA, the USFWS, and the CDFW. The SCVHP is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in approximately 500,000 acres of southern Santa Clara County. The SCVHP provides take authorization for 18 covered species and includes conservation measures to protect the species covered by the SCVHP, as well as a conservation strategy designed to mitigate impacts on covered species and contribute to the recovery of the species in the study area. According to the SCVHP, the project site is designated as a “Grain, Row-crop, Hay and Pasture, Disked / Short-term Fallowed” land cover type.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41 October 2022
Compliance with the SCVHP requires payment of fees according to the Fee Zone designation of the property, payment of nitrogen deposition fees related to the number of anticipated car trips resulting from the development, and any surcharge fees that are required based on site-specific impacts to sensitive habitats or sensitive species. The project site is within Fee Zone B (Agricultural and Valley Floor Lands). As such, the proposed project would be subject to Zone B fees, which are currently $16,452 per acre (2022-2023 rates). In addition, the project would be subject to nitrogen deposition fees, which, as of 2022, are $5.85 for each new vehicle trip. For any temporary impacts, all the same fees are applied, but at a fraction of the total cost, depending on how long the project expects the temporary impact to last.
In addition to fees, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable conditions of the SCVHP. Compliance with such conditions would be ensured with implementation of Mitigation Measures IV-1 (a) through IV-5 above. However, should the proposed project not fulfill payment of necessary fees, the project could conflict with the SCVHP. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IV-9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project the owner or designee shall pay the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan per-acre fee in effect for the appropriate fee zone of the project site, as determined by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, in compliance with Section 18.132.050 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 October 2022
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Discussion
a-c. The project site does not currently contain any structures and has been subject to past disturbance, including regular disking and mowing associated with fuel reduction.
Additionally, the site is surrounded by existing residential, commercial, and planned-unit development. Furthermore, archival research by Archaeological Resource Management (ARM) revealed that previously recorded archaeological resources are not located within the proposed project area. However, three previously recorded resources are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site and thus, the Northwest Information Center of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) noted that the property has potential to contain previously unrecorded archaeological resources. In the event that such resources are unearthed during ground disturbing activities (i.e., any activity that exposes, works or redistributes soil, including but not limited to excavating, filling, stockpiling, grading, grubbing, or clearing), the following City standard conditions of approval related to the protection of historical and archaeological resources would be implemented, consistent with Section 18.60.090 of the City’s Municipal Code:
A. The developer shall enter into written contracts with an archaeologist and the Tamien Nation Tribe, and pay all fees associated with the activities required by this condition. The following policies and procedures for treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered human remains or archaeological materials shall apply:
1. Prior to start of grading or earthmoving activity (includes demolition and moving of heavy equipment on site) on the “first day of construction”, the archaeologist and Tamien Nation Tribal Monitor shall hold a preconstruction meeting for the purposes of "cultural sensitivity training" with the general contractor and subcontractors.
2. An archaeologist and a Tamien Nation Tribal Monitor shall be present on-site to monitor all ground disturbing activities and an archaeologist shall be on-call. Where historical or archaeological artifacts are found, work in areas where remains or artifacts are found will be restricted or stopped until proper protocols are met, as described below:
a) Work at the location of the find will halt immediately within fifty feet of the find. If an archaeologist is not present at the time of the discovery, the applicant shall contact an archaeologist for evaluation of the find to determine whether it qualifies as a unique archaeological resource as defined by this chapter.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43 October 2022
b) If the find is determined not to be a Unique Archaeological Resource, construction can continue. The archaeologist will prepare a brief informal memo/letter in collaboration with a tribal representative that describes and assesses the significance of the resource, including a discussion of the methods used to determine significance for the find;
c) If the find appears significant and to qualify as a unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist will determine if the resource can be avoided and will detail avoidance procedures in a formal memo/letter; and
d) If the resource cannot be avoided, the archaeologist in collaboration with a tribal representative shall develop within forty-eight hours an action plan to avoid or minimize impacts.
The field crew shall not proceed until the action plan is approved by the Development Services Director. The action plan shall be in conformance with California Public Resources Code 21083.2.
3. The following policies and procedures for treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered human remains or archaeological materials shall apply. If human remains are discovered, it is probable they are the remains of Native Americans,
a) If human remains are encountered, they shall be treated with dignity and respect as due to them. Discovery of Native American remains is a very sensitive issue and serious concern.
Information about such a discovery shall be held in confidence by all project personnel on a need-to-know basis. The rights of Native Americans to practice ceremonial observances on sites, in labs and around artifacts shall be upheld.
b) Remains should not be held by human hands. Surgical gloves should be worn if remains need to be handled.
c) Surgical mask should also be worn to prevent exposure to pathogens that may be associated with the remains.
4. In the event that known or suspected Native American remains are encountered, or significant historic or archaeological materials are discovered, ground-disturbing activities shall be immediately stopped.
Examples of significant historic or archaeological materials include, but are not limited to, concentrations of historic artifacts (e.g., bottles, ceramics) or prehistoric artifacts (chipped chert or obsidian, arrow points, ground stone mortars and pestles), culturally altered ash stained midden soils associated with pre-contact Native American habitation sites, concentrations of fire-altered rock and/or burned or charred organic materials and historic structure remains such as stone lined building foundations, wells or privy pits. Ground-disturbing project activities may continue in other areas that are outside the exclusion zone as defined below.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 October 2022
5. An "exclusion zone" where unauthorized equipment and personnel are not permitted shall be established (e.g., taped off) around the discovery area plus a reasonable buffer zone by the contractor foreman or authorized representative, or party who made the discovery and initiated these protocols, or if on-site at the time or discovery, by the monitoring archaeologist and tribal representative (typically twenty-five to fifty feet for single burial or archaeological find).
6. The discovery locale shall be secured (e.g., 24-hour surveillance) as directed by the City or County if considered prudent to avoid further disturbances.
7. The Contractor Foreman or authorized representative, or party who made the discovery and initiated these protocols shall be responsible for immediately contacting by telephone the parties listed below to report the find and initiate the consultation process for treatment and disposition:
• The City of Morgan Hill Development Services Director (408) 779-7247
• The Contractor’s Point(s) of Contact
• The Coroner of the County of Santa Clara (if human remains found) (408) 793-1900
• The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in
Sacramento (916) 653-4082
• The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (916) 481-5785 (H) or (916) 743- 5833 (C)
• The Tamien Nation (707) 295-4011 (office) and (925) 336-5359 (THPO)
8. The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after being notified of the discovery. If the remains are Native American the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC.
9. The NAHC is responsible for identifying and immediately notifying the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). (Note: NAHC policy holds that the Native American Monitor will not be designated the MLD.)
10. Within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC, the MLD will be granted permission to inspect the discovery site if they so choose.
11. Within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC, the MLD may recommend to the City’s Development Services Director the recommended means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The
recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive or destructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Only those osteological analyses or DNA analyses recommended by the appropriate tribe may be considered and carried out.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45 October 2022
12. If the MLD recommendation is rejected by the City of Morgan Hill the parties will attempt to mediate the disagreement with the NAHC. If mediation fails then the remains and all associated grave offerings shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
Compliance with the above standard conditions of approval would ensure that construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to historical resources and unique archeological resources, as well as the disturbance of human remains.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 October 2022
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the California Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, with which the proposed project would be required to comply, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations are provided below.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC, which became effective with the rest of the CBSC on January 1, 2020. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; • Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
• Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use; • Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; • Mandatory periodic inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies;
• Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board; and
• For some single-family and low-rise residential development developed after January 1, 2020, mandatory on-site solar energy systems capable of producing 100 percent of the electricity demand created by the residence(s). Certain residential developments, including those developments that are subject to substantial shading, rendering the use of on-site solar photovoltaic systems infeasible, are exempted from the foregoing requirement.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47 October 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy-efficiency measures from the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are in effect for building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2020.
The 2019 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the current 2016 standards. Non-residential buildings built in compliance with the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 30 percent less energy compared to the 2016 standards, primarily due to lighting upgrades.12
For residential buildings, compliance with the 2019 standards will use approximately seven percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures compared to homes built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards.
Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.
Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction), only portions of the project site would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment occurring at different locations on the project site, rather than a single location. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated by the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. The InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would subsequently help to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to reduce demand on oil and emissions associated with construction.
The CARB has recently prepared the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan),13 which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes examples of local actions (municipal 12 California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. November 2018. 13 California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 October 2022
code changes, zoning changes, policy directions, and mitigation measures) that would support the State’s climate goals. The examples provided include, but are not limited to, enforcing idling time restrictions for construction vehicles, utilizing existing grid power for electric energy rather than operating temporary gasoline/diesel-powered generators, and increasing use of electric and renewable fuel-powered construction equipment. The InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation described above, with which the proposed project must comply, would be consistent with the intention of the 2017 Scoping Plan and the recommended actions included in Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.
Operational Energy Use
In response to the growing climate crisis, the City has determined that natural gas use in local buildings, which accounts for approximately one-third of the community’s carbon footprint, represents the City’s greatest opportunity to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. Requiring all new buildings to be constructed without natural gas will dramatically reduce future emission growth as electricity procured by Silicon Valley Clean Energy is 100% carbon free. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2306 on November 6, 2019, which prohibits natural gas infrastructure in new buildings.
Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of mixed-use developments, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electronic equipment, machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more. Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gaspowered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed multifamily homes and commercial/retail uses.
The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structure would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as door and window interlocks, direct digital controls for HVAC systems, and high efficiency outdoor lighting. Required compliance with the CBSC would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, electricity supplied to the project by PG&E would comply with the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investorowned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources.
With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49 October 2022
discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the project site is located within close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, bicycle infrastructure, and transit infrastructure. The availability of such transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure in the site vicinity would help to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) associated with the project and reduce fuel consumption. In addition, by providing mixed-use development onsite, the project would allow for future project residents to rely on the on-site retail uses, as opposed to travelling off-site. A portion of the workers at the proposed retail uses could reside on-site. Such internal trip capture would further reduce vehicle fuel consumption associated with the project.
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 October 2022
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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 based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
The following discussion is based primarily on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project by Terrasearch, Inc. (see Appendix C).14 ai-iv. Active faults do not cross the site, and the site is not mapped within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.15 Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to risks related to fault rupture. Furthermore, the site is not located within the vicinity of any steep slopes that would be subject to landslide risk, nor within an area requiring special investigation for landslides or liquefaction hazards. According to the ABAG Resilience Program’s Interactive Hazards Map, the project site is located in an area of low liquefaction susceptibility.16
Pursuant to the Geotechnical Investigation, because of Santa Clara County’s proximity to the San Andreas Fault system, the County is considered to be one of the most seismically active regions in the U.S. The San Andreas Fault, located approximately 10.9 miles to the southwest of the project site, is the most likely fault to affect the site with potentially 14 Terrasearch, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Townhome and Commercial Development at 18605 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California. October 20, 2021. 15 Department of Conservation. State of California, Special Studies Zones, Mt. Madonna Quadrangle, Revised Official Map. Effective January 1, 1976.
16 Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program. Available at:
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility. Accessed June 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51 October 2022
destructive ground shaking. In addition, other known active faults within the region that may subject the project site to intense shaking include the Calaveras fault located 3.7 miles to the northeast, the Sargent Fault located 7.5 miles to the southwest, and the Zayanta-Vergeles Fault located 14 miles to the southwest. Based on historical evidence, the likelihood that at least one significant earthquake could produce strong ground shaking at the project site during the design life of the proposed structures is considered high.
However, the proposed project would be subject to all applicable regulations within the CBSC and Chapter 15.08 (Building Code) of the City’s Municipal Code, which provide standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of foundations, building frames, and other building elements. It is also noted that the site is relatively flat and landslides would not pose a hazard to on-site structures or future residents. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. b. Development of the proposed project site would cause ground disturbance of mostly topsoil related to construction activity. The ground disturbance would be limited to the areas proposed for grading and excavation, including building pads; curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvement areas; and drainage, sewer, and water infrastructure alignments.
After grading and excavation and prior to overlaying the disturbed ground surfaces with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to occur, which could adversely affect downstream storm drainage facilities.
As noted in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, stormwater runoff associated with the site would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) standards. As such, the project would not significantly increase stormwater flows into the existing system. The final drainage system design for the project will be subject to review and approval by the City of Morgan Hill Engineering Land Development Division, who will confirm that the proposed drainage system for the project is consistent with the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan and standard stormwaterrelated conditions of approval. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Furthermore, new development within the City that disturbs one or more acres of land is required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) incorporating best management practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction. The proposed project would disturb approximately 3.82 acres and, thus, would be subject to such requirements. In addition, pursuant to Chapter 13.30 (Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control) of the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to submit a sediment and erosion control plan to the City of Morgan Hill, Engineering and Land Development Division, prior to the approval of improvement plans and issuance of building permits. The plan(s) would be required to be acceptable and conform to City standards to prevent significant sediment and soil erosion during construction and include the standards and guidelines found in the
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 October 2022
California Stormwater Quality Association, Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Thus, based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c,d. The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence/settlement, and other unstable soil conditions are discussed in detail below.
Liquefaction
Research and historical data indicate that soil liquefaction generally occurs in saturated, loose granular soil during or after strong seismic ground shaking and is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid.
Typically, liquefaction potential increases with increased duration and magnitude of cyclic loading. However, because of the higher intergranular pressure of the soil at greater depths, the potential for liquefaction is generally limited to the upper 40 feet of the soil.
Potential hazards associated with soil liquefaction below or near a structure include loss of foundation support, lateral spreading, sand boils, and areal and differential settlement.
As indicated in the MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, the project site is located in a Low Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility zone. Furthermore, the soil types, groundwater level, and blow counts encountered in the subsurface field investigation have indicated that the liquefaction potential on the project site is considered very low, even if groundwater should rise to an unprecedented level. Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial liquefaction risk.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is lateral ground movement that occurs as a result of liquefaction, whereby the soils ride atop the liquefied layer of soil. Lateral spreading can occur on relatively flat sites with slopes less than two percent under certain circumstances, generally when the liquefied layer is in relatively close proximity to an open, free slope face such as the bank of a creek channel. Lateral spreading can cause surficial ground tension cracking (i.e., lurch cracking) and settlement. As discussed above, subsurface soil conditions render the potential for liquefaction to occur at the project site to be low, and open, free slopes are not located in close proximity to the project site; therefore, low potential for lateral spreading occurs at the project site.
Landslides
Seismically induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 105 meters AMSL. Pursuant to the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, the project site is not located within a designated seismic hazard zone for landslides.17 Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial landslide risks.
17 Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program. Available at: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience.
Accessed June 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 October 2022
Subsidence/Settlement
Subsidence is the settlement of soils of very low density generally from either oxidation of organic material, or desiccation and shrinkage, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. Given that the proposed project would comply with the CBSC, the potential for subsidence to pose a risk to the proposed development is relatively low. Dynamic compaction, or settlement, is a phenomenon where loose, relatively clean, near-surface sandy soil located above the water table is densified from vibratory loading, typically from strong seismic shaking or vibratory equipment. Test borings indicated that the site near surface soils generally consist of firm to hard, silt, clay, sand, and gravel. Heavy gravel was also encountered at a depth of 28.5 feet in Boring 1. As the most prominent geotechnical consideration on the project site is the probability of seismic shaking during the project’s design life, dynamic settlement would not pose a significant constraint on the proposed project. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR concludes that impacts related to subsidence/settlement would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with compliance with the CBSC, the Morgan Hill General Plan, and the Municipal Code.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are those possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking or swelling. Expansive soils can also consist of silty to sandy clay. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of tolerating or resisting any potentially damaging soil movements and building foundation areas must be properly drained. According to the United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the project site has a shrink-swell rating of 0.62, indicating that the soil type found on-site (San Ysidro loam), has features that are somewhat limited and has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use of the construction of dwellings without basements. As listed in the Web Soil Survey, limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or instillation. However, according to the Geotechnical Investigation provided by Terrasearch, soil expansivity characteristics by means of plasticity tests on select soil samples, indicated that the surficial clay soil found on-site has a low propensity to expand when exposed to increases in moisture content. Therefore, the potential on-site impacts related to expansive soils and direct or indirect risks to life or property would be less-thansignificant.
Other Unstable Soil Conditions
Undocumented fill soils and debris have the potential to be encountered excavation and construction on-site. Should the presence of non-engineered fill be encountered, Terrasearch recommends removal and scarification and compaction of the top eight inches of exposed native ground.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and expansive soils. Compliance with standard construction regulations included in the CBSC would ensure that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving subsidence or settlement. However, undocumented fill soils within the project site would be required to be completely removed and replaced by engineered compact fill. Otherwise, geotechnical and geological issues
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 October 2022
related to being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable could be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant impact.
VII-1. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project by Terrasearch, inc., in reference to additional consultation, observation and testing services provided by Quantum Geotechnical, inc., are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.
VII-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall ensure recommendations pertaining to undocumented fill are incorporated into all grading and building plans designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Terrasearch, inc. e. The proposed development would connect to existing City-maintained sewer infrastructure and would not include the use of septic tanks. Accordingly, no impact would occur related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. f. Paleontological resources or fossils are the remains of prehistoric plant and animal life.
As noted in the General Plan EIR, based on a review of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology’s (UCMP) fossil locality database conducted for all of Santa Clara County, paleontological resources have not been explicitly identified as being found within Morgan Hill.18
As noted in the City’s General Plan, occurrences of fossil resources are closely tied to the geologic units. The soil types at the project site are not considered unique geologic features and are common within the geographic area of the City. As such, development of the proposed project would not destroy a unique geologic feature. Furthermore, the project would be subject to the City’s standard measures listed in Chapter V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND. As noted in the General Plan EIR, such measures would further lessen potential impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 18 City of Morgan Hill. 2035 General Plan, City of Morgan Hill [pg. 4.5-17]. Adopted July 2016.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 October 2022
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion
a,b. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. On April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans.19 The updated GHG thresholds therein address more recent climate change legislation, including SB 32, and provide qualitative thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation. BAAQMD is in the process of updating their CEQA Guidelines to accompany the newly adopted GHG thresholds.
Based on the modeling that Raney conducted for the proposed project, as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS/MND, construction of the project would result in total GHG emissions of 742.57 MTCO2e over the entire construction period.
The construction GHG emissions were amortized over the anticipated project lifetime and included in the annual operational GHG emissions.20 Including the construction emissions 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.
Accessed June 2022. 20 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultPage 274 of 1628 The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 October 2022
(a one-time release that would occur only during construction of the project) with the annual operational emissions (which would occur every year over the lifetime of the entire project) represents a conservative analysis for the annual operational GHG emissions.
As shown in Table 6, the project’s total unmitigated annual GHG emissions in the first year of project operation, 2025, including amortized construction-related emissions, were estimated to be approximately 771.25 MTCO2e/yr.
Table 6
Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions
Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions 24.75
Operational GHG Emissions 746.50
Area 1.46
Energy 79.96
Mobile 645.31
Waste 13.21
Water 6.55
Total Annual GHG Emissions 771.25
Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (see Appendix A).
As noted previously, the BAAQMD’s newly adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and the foregoing information is provided for disclosure purposes only. Potential impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project are considered in comparison with BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance below.
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
As discussed above, on April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. According to the new thresholds of significance, a project must either include specific project design elements (e.g., exclude use of natural gas, achieve a specific reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).21
In December of 2021, the City of Morgan Hill adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP); however, the City’s CAP does not qualify as a local GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the City has determined that the BAAQMD thresholds of significance are appropriate for the proposed project, and the following analysis focuses on the new BAAQMD GHG thresholds related to specific project design elements.
According to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, in order to find a less-thansignificant GHG impact, projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf. Accessed April 2022.
21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57 October 2022
• The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development);
• The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; and
• The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
In order to be consistent with the first criterion, the proposed project is required to include all electric appliances and plumbing. As discussed previously, natural gas is prohibited in all new construction within the City, effective March 1, 2020, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2306. However, the project is proposed to include one stub for potential future restaurant use. Therefore, the proposed project could include the use of natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing in the future and, thus, would not comply with the first criterion.
Regarding the second criterion, as discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding energy use during both project construction and project operations. Required compliance with applicable standards and regulations ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
With respect to the third criterion, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the Citywide VMT was calculated to be 24.64 per capita. Therefore, the OPR recommended impact threshold of 15 percent below the Citywide average VMT per capita equates to
20.94 VMT per capita. The project is projected to generate VMT per capita of 20.09, which would not exceed 20.94 VMT per capita. As such, the project would achieve a 15 percent reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. In addition, the project’s retail component consists of 4,016 square feet of ground-floor retail space. Because the proposed retail use would be less than 50,000 square feet in size, the proposed project may be presumed to be a local-serving facility and would therefore have a less-thansignificant impact on VMT.
With respect to the fourth criterion, the proposed project would be subject to the multifamily residential requirements set forth in the CALGreen standards as well as the nonresidential requirements for the commercial portion of the site. For a multi-family residential project to comply with Tier 2 CALGreen standards, as required by BAAQMD, 20 percent of the on-site parking spaces must be EV capable. EV capable spaces have the electric infrastructure necessary to support future installation of EV charging units. The site plan for the proposed project includes a total of 123 covered and uncovered residential parking spaces; therefore, 25 of the on-site spaces must be EV capable. Each of the 44 garages included on-site, as well as two of the uncovered residential parking spaces would be pre-wired to contain the necessary infrastructure for future residents to be able to install
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 October 2022
and use EV charging stations. As such, approximately 37 percent of the proposed project’s residential parking spaces have EV charging capabilities. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the residential Tier 2 CALGreen standards. With regard to the nonresidential Tier 2 CALGreen standards, the proposed project would include 38 parking spaces dedicated to commercial use. Based on the nonresidential Tier 2 CALGreen standards, commercial development with between 26 and 50 total parking spaces is required to provide four EV capable on-site spaces. As shown on the site plan for the proposed project, commercial EV capable spaces are not proposed to be included on-site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not comply with the nonresidential Tier 2 CALGreen standards.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project could be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
VIII-1. The following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the Morgan Hill Development Services Department:
• The proposed project shall be designed such that the project is built all-electric, and natural gas infrastructure shall be prohibited onsite, including in the non-residential development; and • A minimum of four commercial use electric vehicle (EV) capable parking spaces shall be included on-site, consistent with the Tier 2 CALGreen standards.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59 October 2022
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion
a. Residential and retail uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of hazardous materials. Operations would likely involve use of common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount used on the site, occasional use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment.
Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The following discussion provides an analysis of potential hazards and hazardous materials associated with upset or accident conditions related to the proposed construction activities and existing on-site conditions.
Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of various products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. In addition, heavy-duty construction equipment operating on the project site would contain hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products. Small quantities of such potentially toxic substances would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.
However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 October 2022
Safety Codes and local County ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials.
Existing On-Site Hazardous Conditions
A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) for the purpose of identifying potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the project site (see Appendix D).22 The ESA included a survey of the site and a review of historical documentation, aerial photography, regulatory agency files, and environmental sites radius reports. According to the ESA, the project site has not had a history of agricultural use and has been relatively vacant since 1917. However, Stantec observed evidence of a prior homeless encampment and two propane tanks in the southern portion of the project site as well as an open, approximately 35-gallon unlabeled steel cylinder that was observed with an unidentifiable liquid with a potential petroleum sheen. The ESA recommended the liquid be profiled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the proposed project borders the UPRR tracks to the west-southwest and the potential for heavy metals found in herbicides such as arsenic and lead used for weed abatement along railroad tracks may exist. A collection of soil samples for chemical analysis was therefore analyzed in the Phase II ESA to determine if pesticides or heavy metals are present at concerning levels for residential development, as discussed in further detail below.
The Phase I/II ESA did not identify any evidence of stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation, solid waste disposal, areas of fill placement, existing water wells, septic tanks, or evidence of hazardous substances. In addition, evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) was not observed at the site. The ESA does note that the existing asphalt associated with the commercial development to the north may contain Petromat, a stress-absorbing fabric often associated with asphalt that may contain asbestos, between the asphalt layers and/or native soils. The proposed project would not involve disturbance of the existing asphalt parking lot and, thus, the Petromat and any associated asbestos material present would not be disturbed. Accordingly, any potential asbestos materials associated with such would not have the potential to become airborne and would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, the site is, not located within the vicinity of any properties that would pose an environmental hazard to the project site.
Additional Arsenic Assessment
An Additional Arsenic Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by Stantec to evaluate the adjacent UPRR tracks. The additional assessment included further lateral and vertical delineation to determine the estimated quantity of arsenic impacted soil that may impact project development (Appendix D).23. The scope of investigation included hand augering and sampling of four soil borings (HA-1 through HA-4) to approximately 3- feet below ground surface (bgs) adjacent to the west-southwestern property boundary, near the railroad tracks. Soil samples were collected at 0.5 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, and 2.5 to
3.0-foot depth intervals for potential analysis of lead and arsenic. A total of ten soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the metal’s arsenic and lead by USEPA test method 6010B.
22 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, 18545-18565 Monterey Street, Morgan Hill, California, 95037. July 8, 2021. 23 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Additional Arsenic Assessment, 18545-18565 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California, 95037. July 29, 2021.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61 October 2022
Analysis of the soil borings detected arsenic in all of the shallow soil samples at concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 28 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg), which are above the Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for residential use of 0.067 mg/kg, and above the California naturally occurring regional background levels of 0.6 to 11.0 mg/kg.
Therefore, deeper soil samples from the 2.0 and 3.0 feet interval were further analyzed, and the presence of arsenic was observed in all samples at concentrations ranging from
6.7 to 64 mg/kg.
The elevated detections of arsenic exceed regulatory screening criteria and naturally occurring background levels and are considered a REC to the proposed project site. To determine lateral and vertical delineation, Stantec performed an additional arsenic assessment at the project site on July 13, 2021. A field technician directed the advancement of 11 borings as “step out” borings to the borings (HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3) where arsenic was detected. The locations of the borings are shown in Figure 8.
Arsenic was detected in all of the additional soil samples collected at concentrations ranging from 5.1 to 57 mg/kg. All arsenic detections are above the ESL for residential use of 0.067 mg/kg. However, many of the detected concentrations are within naturally occurring background levels of 0.6-11.0 mg/kg used by California regulatory agencies as cleanup standards.
Results from the June and July sampling analyses have shown that the shallow soil along the western property boundary adjacent to the railroad tracks is impacted with arsenic above regulatory screening levels. The arsenic-impacted soil in the vicinity of HA-1 has not been defined vertically given the concentration of 57 mg/kg reported at a depth of 5- feet bgs. However, the impact has been defined laterally to the east and south. The volume of soil with arsenic concentrations exceeding naturally occurring regional background levels at boring location HA-1 is estimated at about 50 cubic yards, based on the reasonable assumption that the vertical limits are less than six feet and the northern limits not defined to date are less than 10 feet.
The arsenic-impacted soil in the vicinity of HA-2 has been defined vertically to less than three feet in depth. Given the borings completed to date, the volume at boring location HA-2 is estimated at about 30 cubic yards, based on the reasonable assumption that the vertical limits are less than three feet and the eastern limits, which are not currently defined to date, are less than 10 feet from boring HA-2.
The arsenic-impacted soil in the vicinity of HA-3 has been defined vertically to less than four feet in depth. Given the borings completed to date, the volume at boring location HA3 is estimated at about 25 cubic yards, based on the reasonable assumption that the vertical limits are less than four feet.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 October 2022
Figure 8
Sample Location Map
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63 October 2022
Based on the results of the Additional Arsenic Assessment, the estimated volume of arsenic impacted soil along the western property line in common with the rail line is estimated at 105 cubic yards of soil. Given that the lateral limits are not completely defined, a 50 percent contingency was applied to account for unknowns. As such, the estimated total soil that would require removal from the project site would be approximately 160 cubic yards.
The volume of soil is considered to be a de minimis volume and condition that would not warrant regulatory oversight. However, the soil would be required to be excavated and removed from the site, and verification soil samples would be collected from each of the three excavations at borings HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3 to confirm removal of the arsenic to the proposed cleanup level of 11.0 mg/kg. Based on the collected soil data, the soil should not be classified as a California hazardous waste.
Other Contaminated Soils
As the site has not shown historical indications for agricultural purposes, the potential for residual pesticides or heavy metals associated with prior herbicide application does not exist on-site. However, as concluded above, because metal-containing herbicides are commonly applied along rail lines for weed control, soils in the vicinity of the existing UPRR tracks along the northeastern site boundary have the potential to be contaminated by lead.
The Additional Arsenic Assessment discussed above also detected the presence of lead in all shallow soil samples collected at concentrations ranging from 1.8 to 19 mg/kg.
However, these concentrations are well below the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB) ESL for residential use of 32 mg/kg, and also below the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) residential screening level of 80 mg/kg for lead. Therefore, lead is not considered a hazard to the proposed project site.
Conclusion
As discussed above, Stantec considers the volume of arsenic and lead contaminated soil associated with the UPRR tracks to be a de minimis volume and regulatory oversight is not necessarily warranted. However, it is recommended that the soil be excavated, removed from the project site, and reanalyzed to confirm removal of arsenic to the proposed cleanup level. Furthermore, the ESA recommends the potential RECs and contaminants of concern (COCs) regarding the two propane tanks and the open, approximately 35-gallon unlabeled steel cylinder with unidentifiable liquid in the southern portion of the project site be profiled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Without implementation of the aforementioned recommendations, the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 October 2022
IX-1. Prior to commencement of construction activities associated with the project site, the project applicant shall implement the recommendations included in the Additional Arsenic Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for the proposed project, including the excavation and disposal of the on-site soils specified in the Assessment (i.e., associated with HA-1, HA-2, HA-3), and the collection of confirmation soil samples to be analyzed by a state-certified hazardous waste testing laboratory for arsenic, to confirm removal of the arsenic to the proposed cleanup level of 11.0 mg/kg. Verification of proper excavation, disposal, and confirmation testing shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) and Morgan Hill Development Services Department.
IX-2 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to conduct additional testing of the 35-gallon unlabeled steel cylinder with an undifferentiable liquid to confirm the contents within. In the event that hazardous materials are found within the cylinder, the project applicant shall dispose of the materials and cylinder in accordance with applicable USEPA methods. The results of the testing, as well as verification of proper disposal, shall be submitted to the Morgan Hill Development Services Department.
c. The nearest schools relative to the project site are Stratford School approximately 0.4 southwest, Voices College Bound Academy of Morgan Hill 0.74 miles northeast, and Crossroads Christian School and Shadow Mountain Baptist School approximately 0.64 miles and 0.71 miles south, respectively. As discussed under questions ‘a’ and ‘b’ above, with implementation of mitigation, development of the proposed project would not result in any significant hazards related to the use, transport, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. Thus, no impact would result relating to the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. The Phase I and Phase II ESA indicates that the project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Therefore, no impact would result from implementation of the proposed project. e. The public airport nearest to the project site is the San Martin Airport, which is located approximately 5.43 miles south of the project site at 13030 Murphy Avenue. The project site is located well outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) identified in the South County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.24 In addition, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and no impact would occur.
f. With the exception of two- to 15.85-inch curb and gutter improvements along Monterey Road in pursuant to City Standards A-3 and sidewalk improvements along the project frontage, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the City’s existing roadway system. The project would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. In addition, 24 Santa Clara County. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, South County Airport. Amended November 16, 2016.
The Gates Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65 October 2022
the project would not conflict with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan.25 While the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, the site is currently designated for commercial use. Therefore, development of the site with urban uses has been generally anticipated by the City. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. g. The City’s Wildland Urban Interface map indicates that the project site is not located in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).26 While the residential area further to the west of the site past Del Monte Avenue is located within a Very High FHSZ, the area was classified as such in 2008, prior to buildout of the area with residential uses. In addition, buildout of the site has been previously considered by the City, and the project site is situated within a developed area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 25 City of Morgan Hill. Emergency Operations Plan. January 11, 2018. 26 City of Morgan Hill. City of Morgan Hill Wildland Urban Interface Map. March 2009.